1921-02-25

PAPERS TABLED

[Stage Direction]
Statement of bonds or securities registered in the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada.-Sir Henry Drayton.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That Messrs. Anderson, Douglas (Strath-cona), Stewart (Hamilton), Armstrong (Lamb-ton), Whidden, Nesbitt, Tobin, Lapointe and Maharg be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: That the name of Mr. Gordon be added to the Select Standing Committees on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Sir George Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce) Bill No. 11 was introduced and read the first time.	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I move to proceed to Bill No.
2, to amend The Dominion Elections Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
House again in committee on Bill No. 2, to amend The Dominion Elections Act.- Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was
before the committee yesterday, clause I was read, and an amendment thereto had been moved by the Hon. Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie). The amendment will be found printed, au long, at page 277 of Unrevised Hansard. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. BUREAU:: I see by the Bill that
it is brought down to amend Dominion Elections Act.
For the purpose of the vote on a question submitted under the Canada Temperance Act directed by His Majesty's Proclamation dated the fourth day of June, 1920, to be taken in the province of Ontario on the eighteenth day of April, 1921.
Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), in his explanation the other day, said (Unrevised Hansard, p. 253) :
I thought I had made it very clear when I first moved the motion that the reason the motion intervenes and that this Bill is necessary is not because the previous Act was insufficient in the circumstances, but that until at the very eve of the passing of the Act or just afterwards it had not been called to the attention of the Government that were a plebiscite to be held in the year 1920 there would be this extensive disfranchisement of the soldiers.
I understood that when the Franchise Act was passed, provision was made to cover the case of a vote being taken in Ontario, and that the lists of 1919 were to be used. The Franchise Act was assented to on July 1, 1920. By the present Bill I see that the proclamation was dated June 4, 1920, and that it fixed April 18, 1921, as the date for taking the referendum. Therefore, the Government were fully aware on July 1, 1920, that this referendum was to be taken on April 18, 1921.


Arthur Meighen: There must be some
mistake.


Jacques Bureau: There is a mistake in
the printing or somewhere else. Evidently something is wrong, and I should like to have that point cleared up before I vote on the amendment.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think I can explain
the apparent discrepency. The matter was in the Department of the Secretary of State, and the proclamation was dated back to June 4, to coincide with the date of the Order in Council, though, as a matter of fact, is was issued much later.


Jacques Bureau: If I understand aright,
the proclamation simply recites what the

Order in Council contains, and if an Order in Council was passed providing for a referendum in the province of Ontario, it must have set the date, and if the* date was set, it was the 18th day of April, 1921.


Hugh Guthrie: The Order in Council
does not fix the date. The date is fixed by the proclamation.


Jacques Bureau: Does not the Order in Council decide that a plebiscite shall be held? Certainly, it is their duty to determine the date. The Secretary of State could not decide that without the knowledge and approval of the Governor in Council.


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that the Order in Council merely states that the request of the province of Ontario shall be granted, and the questions submitted to the electors at a date to he fixed by proclamation. When the proclamation was subsequently issued it was thought by the then Secretary of State that it should bear the same date as the Order in council, and that was the reason why, although subsequently issued, it bears on its face the same date as the Order in Council.


Jacques Bureau: That is rather a lame explanation. Here is an Order in Council passed by the Government to authorize a certain thing. The Government by this Order in Council does not delegate its power to any man or minister to fill in what he thinks necesary, and then antedate it, for some reason or other which I cannot understand. When we say that a law shall take effect upon proclamation, surely my hon. friend does not pretend that he can antedate the proclamation. The proclamation is evidence of the date at which the law is to take effect. Now, either the Government knew or did not know on the 4th of June, when they issued the Order in Council and decided on the 21st of April, or whatever is the date, that a number of people had been disfranchised in the lists of 1919. If they knew, then I think they were derelict in their duty at the time we passed the law in not putting into the statute in the first instance what ought to have been embodied in it, that the latest lists, or whatever else they thought fit, should be used. I do not object to any of the provisions of the bill, because I am not particularly interested except in the amendment. I do not see why we should leave to posterity the name of Mr. Spence or anybody else, officials of these organizations, who seek to legislate us into becoming good people in spite of our-
selves. I would therefore suggest that this amendment be amended by striking out, as it appears in Hansard-I have not a copy of the bill before me-the following words in lines nine and ten of sub-section 2: "Ben H. Spence and Andrew S. Grant." I think the statute will be fully effective and operative without the insertion of those two names. The clause would then read this way:
(ii) On behalf of the persons interested in promoting' an affirmative answer to the question submitted the Dominion Alliance (Ontario Branch) and the Ontario Referendum Committee jointly shall be entitled to appoint the agents aforesaid, and every such appointment shall be made in writing by such person in each electoral district as may be notified to the Returning Officer jointly by the secretaries-
And so on. Then in the second part of the clause I would similarly deal with the gentlemen who bears the name of Boyce. The words "Secretary of the Citizens' Liberty League" are, I think, amplp. Further on in the third paragraph I would say that the Chief Electoral Officer shall be notified of the names of the secretaries of these organizations, and then the people who are appointed by the secretaries shall have the right to appoint the agents.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the committee will agree with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. I may say that I did not draft the clause. The Chief Electoral Officer who drafted it quite concurs in the opinion that names are unnecessary, and if the committee agrees I have no objection to the suggestion to strike them out in both cases.


Jacques Bureau: My motion, then, is to strike out in the second paragraph, in the ninth and tenth lines, as the amendment appears in Hansard at page 277, the words "Ben H. Spence and Andrew S. Grant," and to strike out in the last but one line of the same clause the name "C. D. Boyce."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. POWER:: Will the effect of this clause be to exclude any other organizations from having representatives at the polls? Suppose the Women's Christian Temperance Union wished to have a representative at the poll, would they be excluded by reason of the fact that the Referendum League and the Dominion Alliance were already represented, or would it be only a question of precedence?


Hugh Guthrie: They would have no
right to be represented at the poll.

Mr. JACOBS. Shame.


Hugh Guthrie: If we do not pass this legislation I doubt whether any one would have the right to be represented at the poll. The Franchise Act, upon which this legislation is based, provides of course for the presence at the poll of candidates or their agnets. There will be no candidates in this vote, and unless we specially appoint some one to attend in the interests of those who affirm and those who oppose the legislation, I doubt whether any one would have the right to be present at the polls. Those persons in Ontario who feel directly interested in the matter have met and have among themselves agreed as to what would be the best scrutiny to have at the polls, and they brought their joint suggestion, which is set out in the paragraph I have submitted as an amendment. For my part, I think it offers a fairly reasonable solution of the difficulty.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not wish to criticize the views of these organizations in Ontario, but under the Scott Act, if I remember rightly, when elections were held any elector was entitled to appear at the poll and, on being sworn, to act as representative for one side or the other. My point is that I do not think it is fair to deprive any elector of that privilege and to allow only certain organizations to appear in the poll. It might very well happen that in certain constituencies, or in certain localities, the representative either of the Alliance or of the Referendum League might not be competent, or might not be thought to be competent by those most interested.


Mr. JACOBS:: Might not be sober.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would not like to go
so far as to say that; but it might be better for the conduct of the polling if some other party were represented in the poll, and I do not think we should deprive any citizen of the right to appear in a poll even in the province of Ontario.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: It might be a
wet day.


Mr. CANNON:: In the event of the
Dominion Alliance, or whatever it is called, appointing representatives in every polling division in Ontario how will they be paid for their services?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no knowledge on that question, I assume their services will be given free.


Lucien Cannon: As I understand, referenda were held in other provinces and after the vote had been taken the accounts were sent in to the Ottawa Government I would ask were these accounts settled by the respective associations or by the country?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not aware that
the Government has received any accounts for services of that kind. The Chief Electoral Officer informs me that he is not aware of any either.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the amendment carry?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Before the amendment
carries I wonder whether the minister would guarantee to the committee that, once Ontario goes dry-and we all piously hope it will-it will remain in that happy and satisfactory state for some time, and that the country will not be called upon to pay for any more plebiscites. I would like to know from the Government how many referanda can be taken under this legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: One might be held
under the present law each three years by any province that asks for it in the way prescribed by the Act.


Jacques Bureau: It will be necessary to
make a change in sub-section 3. I move to strike out the words in the third and fourth lines "hereafter changes its Secretary, such changes" and the word "If" at the beginning of the paragraph, and insert in lieu of the word "If" the words "the names of the Secretaries of".


Hugh Guthrie: Just before that motion is put let me say that another draft has been handed to me by Colonel Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer. He proposes that sub-section 3 be made to read as follows:
The names of the Secretaries of the Dominion Alliance (Ontario Branch) the Ontario Referendum Committee, and The Citizens' Liberty League shall be notified to the Chief Electoral Officer who shall advise the Returning Officer thereof, and notification of the persons in each electoral district authorized to appoint agents may thereafter be given by such Secretaries.
The language sounds to me as if it covered the point.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I want to ask one question which may or may not have a direct bearing upon the point. In elections held under the Canada Temperance Act how are the lists to be made? My reason for asking the question is, that in the city of Quebec there is a probability of our having an



election under the Canada Temperance Act within the next month or so. Will the minister therefore state how the lists are to be made up?


Hugh Guthrie: In future', at all elections to be held under the Canada Temperance Act, the machinery provided under the Dominion Elections Act will have to be adopted.
Mr. POWrER:	Even though it is the
cumbersome and expensive machinery provided under the Act of last session for this purpose?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend may
call the machinery cumbersome but the Toronto Globe paid it a high compliment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Mr. STEELE:: Before the clause is
carried I wish to propose another amendment. Under paragraph (c) of section 29 of the Elections Act a residence of two months in the electoral district is required of any voter. In paragraph (d) of section 1 of this Bill, instead of two months residence in the electoral district two months residence in the province of Ont-[DOT] ario is required.	There may be legal
objections to doing so but I think it is very desirable that for the vote to be taken in April we should adhere to the residence in the electoral district for all voters. I would therefore move that:
Paragraph (d) of subsection 1, of section 29 be amended by striking out the words "Province of Ontario for" in line 24 thereof and substituting therefor the words "Electoral district wherever such person seeks to vote for at least"
Then the clause will read:
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c) of subsection 1 of section 29, every person otherwise qualified to vote and not disqualified from voting shall be entitled to vote if he has ordinarily resided in Canada for twelve months and in the electoral district where such voter seeks to vote for at least two months before the first day of February, 1921.


Hugh Guthrie: This proposal raises
a question upon which the Government would be glad of the opinion of the committee; it opens a fair field for argument. The section as it appears in the Bill provides for a residence qualification of twelve months in Canada and two months in the province of Ontario. The amendment proposes two months residence in the particular electoral district striking out the words " Province of Ontario." It is argued, and has been argued before the Cabinet committee who heard a deputa-

tion, that under the Dominion Elections Act the residential qualification is two months in the electoral district, irrespective of residence in the province The change here is to two months' residence in the province. The distinction is broadly this: The constituency in a referendum of this kind is a provincial constituency; the constituency under the Dominion Elections Act is an electoral district for the purpose of returning a member to this House. In the one case residence within the electoral district is required where you are only voting for a member to represent that particular district. But this is a question which will involve the whole province of Ontario, the whole province is the constituency, and in the drafting of this proposal the Chief Electoral Officer adopted that plan and provided for two months' residence in Ontario, as well, of course, as twelve months' residence in the Dominion.
I am told by the Chief Electoral Officer that experience in the West, where a similar vote was taken last October, would justify retaining the clause as it is in the Bill now before this committee. It is said that in many cases people move from one district to another within a province, and that those people are deprived of their votes; and the argument is made, that so long as a man resides within the province itself he should be entitled to cast his vote. These are the two phases of the question. I do not know that the Government has any particular view either way, neither do I know just what view the committee will take of it. In the meantime it is open for discussion.


Mr. NESBITT:: What strikes me is that if the residential qualification embraced the whole province the deputy returning officer might have no knowledge of the voters. In the rural districts they can be introduced by an elector, and he can state that they have a right to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: He has to swear to it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He can swear to it
probably. I do not care which way it is put, but during this discussion it struck me that the proposed change might open the door to fraud a great deal more if the residential qualification applied to the province of Ontario rather than to the electoral district, because in the latter ordinarily those who are going to vote are well known.


Mr. CRERAR:: I quite concur in the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. FEBRUARY 25, 1921
Nesbitt). I see no reason why the same provision should not he made to apply in this House as ordinarily applies in the election for the House of Commons. I can quite understand the possibility of a great deal of wrongful voting if the clause stands as presented in the amendment by my hon. friend who is handling it for the Government. We all know it is a regrettable thing, but nevertheless it is the fact that in cities particularly those can be found who will swear to anything if there is any financial gain to accrue to them. Fortunately they comprise a very small portion of our people. It would be quite a simple matter to get together a number of such unscrupulous persons and simply have them vote at every polling division they could visit in a day. On the other hand, as my hon. friend from North Oxford points out, if the residence qualification is confined to the electoral division, the people in that division are acquainted with those who are going to vote, and consequently there is not the possibility of fraud that exists in the amendment as introduced by the Government. I remember that a number of years ago a referendum similar to the one in contemplation was taken in the province of Manitoba. The way was open for fraud and impersonation, and in one polling division more people voted than there were men, women and children in it. It is better to avoid the possibility of such an undesirable condition of affairs, and I therefore very heartily support the proposal of my hon. friend from North Oxford.


Mr. LALOR:: Mr. Chairman, I remember when the Ontario election law provided that the voter must be a resident of the municipality. I always thought that was a very unfair method. I have known many instances where farmers sold out and moved to the next district, thus losing their votes. I think very great objection will be raised by people in the rural districts when they find that because they have changed their residence they are not permitted to vote.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: They are in the same
position as if they were voting for the election of members of Parliament.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I do not care. I believe
that any man who is a bona fide resident of the province of Ontario has a right to vote, even though he may move from one county or township to another. I think it is only just and fair to any citizen that he should not be deprived of his vote on account of change of residence.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: Will the
regular voters' list be compiled for the purposes of the referendum under the provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, and will it be completed within a reasonable time before the actual voting?


Hugh Guthrie: In urban municipalities, the list which will be complied and completed within twelve days before the election. But my hon. friend will recollect that a different rule applies in regard to rural municipalities. There, notwithstanding whether a man is off the list or on, he has the right on election day to go to the polls and demand a ballot, but he has to provide himself with somebody who will vouch for him, and the person so vouching must be a resident of the electoral district and on the voter's list. He takes an oath that the man applying for a ballot is a qualified elector. Then it is the duty of the returning officer to hand the applicant a ballot, even though his name is not on the list. It is not so in cities, towns and villages. I think that reasonably safeguards the rural vote. Of course, you might find some scalli-wags who would go from poll to poll and try to vote, but I think we have provided a sufficient safeguard, inasmuch as a resident who is on the voters' list for that particular division must take an oath in order to qualify an applicant for a ballot. In the Act as originally drawn we had a provision that two must vouch for an applicant, but at the instance of the committee who considered the clause we limited the requirement to one.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It seems to me that there is a difference between this vote and the vote for members of Parliament. You elect members of Parliament for one particular district; the man who is elected is supposed to be the choice of those who are electors resident in that district. In this case the whole of Ontario is one electoral district. It is not that prohibition shall or shall not prevail in an electoral district, it is as to whether it shall or shall not prevail in the whole province of Ontario. What is wanted is to get the vote of every qualified voter in the whole province in order to ascertain the opinion of the province, and I think you would cut off a great many people from voting if you made it obligatory that they should have resided in the electoral district itself for the time specified. The injustice which would be done in that case would be far greater than any that might arise through double voting or personation, pen-

alties for which are prescribed in the Act. Having regard to the fact that it is one constituency which is voting and in which every voter votes for the whole of the province, I should be in favour of leaving the clause as it is and not introducing the condition of residence in the locality itself.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: If this
amendment carries, the effect will be the disfranchisement of a large number of voters. For instance, just about that time of the year the lumbermen in the northern country are breaking up their camps and moving out, and would not have two months' residence in any district at the time of the voting. It seems to me that by this provision an injustice might be done to large numbers of the working population who migrate from place to place.


Michael Steele: There is, no doubt, a
good deal in what has been said in opposition to the proposed amendment. But in the guarding of the ballot box and in the taking of the vote we should endeavour to be consistent. Two months' residence in the electoral district is specially provided for in the Elections Act. I do not think that any member of Parliament would desire the removal of that restriction. In the coming referendum, I am sure, no one desires anything but a fair and honest vote of the electors of Ontario. But in providing machinery for the taking of that vote, at least the necessary precautions should be taken to protect the ballot box from any irregularity. We have thrown the door wide open by allowing any person whose name is not on the list in the rural districts to come up on election day, and, by taking the oath and being certified to by another elector, to vote. Personally I doubt whether even that is a wise provision in the Elections Act. However, apart from that, we have thrown the door pretty wide open, and while some people may be disfranchised if the local residence clause is inserted, we can under no condition, in no franchise Act, prevent the disfranchisement of some people. In the urban districts many persons will be disfranchised when the lists are revised. If we seek to allow every resident of Ontario to vote, then we are inconsistent in saying that in the urban districts any person whose name is not on the list shall not be allowed to vote. It seems to me that the proposed amendment is a wise precaution. It will, perhaps, save Parliament from a good deal of criticism afterward, and not very much objection would be

made my those people who, under the amendment, would be disfranchised.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: It seems to me that the weight of the argument rests with the hon. member (Mr. Steele) who has moved the amendment. It is a safeguard to provide that a man who votes shall have resided in the constituency for a certain length of time; if you take away that safeguard I do not see who is going to testify to the voter's residence in Ontario. The provision has always been in the Elections Act, and few are disfranchised under it. I was sorry to hear my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) say that some men were words cut out. Coming from the hon. prepared to swear to anything, particularly in the cities. Now, I would like those member, they have more significance than they otherwise would have. But I do not believe that he wished to insinuate that the man in the city will, because he lives in the city, take an oath that he would not take if he were in the country. I believe that those who live in the cities of Ontario are just as likely to swear to the truth as they would be if they lived in rural ridings. So far as the amendment is concerned, two months' residence surely cannot be considered as too much. I do not live in Toronto, but I would not be surprised if Toronto voted wet. If, however, you allow Toronto to be flooded with men from the rural districts and smaller cities and towns of Ontario, the vote for Toronto might be dry-something which Toronto did not intend or desire. I believe that Winnipeg voted wet and the rest of Manitoba dry in the last referendum on this question. Perhaps Winnipeg thinks it did the right thing; that is not for me to say, but Winnipeg1 would not like to have its vote submerged, even if it were a minority, by the transference of votes from other districts where they were not so badly needed. Without the proposed amendment, therefore, I foresee a condition under which men might move from one district in Ontario to another where their votes would count for the most. The question is, perhaps, difficult to decide, and no doubt whichever way you decide it a few will be disfranchised. But our law has been a good one in the past, and it seems to me that no hardship will be imposed on anybody by providing that the voter must have resided a certain length of time in the riding in which he votes.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In Northern Ontario
many voters quite frequently change their

residence from one constituency to another. This particular vote will be taken on lists, so far as the rural parts are concerned, prepared prior to December,; 1919, and since that time many men have changed their residence. If this amendment carries these men will be deprived of the right to vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They can swear in their votes.


James Arthurs: Not unless they have been resident two months in the district in which they desire to vote. The proposed amendment would deprive many lumbermen and miners of their votes.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I understand that the real purpose of this amendment is to obviate the necessity of revising the lists and thereby save some $300,000. Has my hon. friend formed any estimate of the number of names that will likely be left off the lists as the result of our not having the full revision? As I understand it, any persons whose names are not on the lists will have to be sworn. Has the minister any idea how many persons will have to go to the polls and swear on their names in order that they may have the right to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: It would be very hard to form an estimate. The man who could form the nearest estimate would be the Chief Electoral Officer, and he says that in some polls there will be very few names to add while in others there may be twenty-five, fifty, or even more. No estimate has been made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend directed the attention of the Dominion Alliance and the Ontario Referendum Committee to this effect of the amendment? Has he considered the possible effect that it will have upon the number of votes cast? I assume that many of those who would like to vote will be women who have never voted before; they may hesitate to take an oath in order that they may be entitled to vote. Then, there are many classes who might take exception to swearing their names at all. Has my hon. friend considered that aspect, and has he discussed it with parties that are likely to be interested?


Hugh Guthrie: The parties most interested have certainly brought that aspect of the matter to the attention of the Government, and we have discussed and considered it. There ai'e two opinions on it.
Those who are least familiar with elections and election laws seem to think there may be some crowding at the polls, some blocking, on account of the great number of people who intend to vote; but under the Act there is power to open such additional polls as may be necessary to accommodate the voters. That having been pointed out, I think in every case the objection has been withdrawn. I do not see any likelihood of any blocking of the polls even if fifty or a hundred voters have to be sworn, unless somebody deliberately occupies the time of the clerks, and a constable is on hand for the purpose of putting a man of that kind out of the polling booth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point
is directed, not to the blocking of the polls, but to the effect of certain persons being obliged to take an oath before they register their votes. I understand, in this referendum, there will be a number of women voting who, perhaps, have not voted before. The point I want to bring out, is this, that if the law as originally drafted had been complied with, the names of all those persons would be on the lists, so that there would be no need for any group of people taking an oath; but in consequence of the change that is now being made, hundreds of prospective voters will go to the polls and will find that their names are not on the lists, and so they will be obliged to take an oath before they can be entitled to vote. I just want to make perfectly sure that the Government feels that the electors are satisfied as regards the possibility of large numbers of voters requiring to be sworn.


Hugh Guthrie: The only complaint
I know of on that score is one from a man who stated that his wife objected to the taking of an oath. The law, as originally drafted, adopted the Ontario lists, and closing the door in that way would constitute a far greater hardship than asking the people to take the oath. We have now opened the door, but we have prescribed one safeguard, that an oath shall be taken.


Mr. CURRIE:: As regards this clause, the only attitude for the committee to take is that of fairness to all parties concerned. If the effect of the proposed amendment will deprive anybody of a vote, I for one will not support it. By passing this amendment, we shall certainly deprive a number of people of their votes, and for that reason I do not think the amendment should carry. Whilst an amendment similar to this would work all right in a

case where there were constituencies and we desired to prevent what is known as "colonization"-that is, having a lot of people moving over night from one constituency to another to carry it-but as this is a vote to be taken throughout the province we should take the broadest view of the whole matter and adopt a course which will ensure to everybody the freedom of the ballot. I speak feelingly on this matter, because by dodges and bars of this kind placed in the statute, I was twenty-eight years of age before I was able to cast a vote, although, under the law of the day, I was entitled to cast a vote at twenty-one. The whole history of the ballot is filled with restrictions placed upon the exercise of the franchise, and we should look at the matter from a judicial standpoint and say: We will not prevent anybody from the right of exercising the franchise, on account of residence, on account of age-that is, granted that we give them the full age of twenty-one years 

on account of colour, religion or anything else. If we do that, I think we are doing what is proper. For that reason I do not see the need for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Perth South (Mr. Steele). If this were a ease where a vote was to be taken by constituencies, there might be some argument in favour of this proposition; but I think the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer have taken the right course, and the ballot will be amply safeguarded, and no one can come forward and say: By some trick of legislation this House has deprived certain people of their vote, and the verdict of the people of the province would have been reversed if those people had been able to vote. For that reason I am in favour of the utmost liberality in the taking of that vote, and I trust the committee will hold the same view.


Hugh Guthrie: One point that has just come to my mind is that the experience in Alberta and Saskatchewan has justified the Chief Electoral Officer in making the change. In those two provinces the law under the Franchise Act requires residence for two months in the electoral district, and he received quite a number of protests from judges and temperance organs in each province pointing out the hardship of the provision. He received no protests from any one in the province opposed to it. In consequence of, and recognizing those protests, he drew up the present amendment. I do not want the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Currie) to suppose

that I have any particular side or view on this question. I am not particularly concerned with it. Whatever is the view of the committee, that I am willing to accept.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Was this amendment suggested by any of the interested parties, and if so, by whom? Was this amendment approved by any of those seeking the referendum?	|


Michael Steele: I drafted the amendment myself and submitted it to the committee.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The Solicitor General said that there had been a deputation asking for this amendment.


John Allister Currie: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not addressing the hon. member for Simcoe North. I heard the minister say that there had been a deputation asking for this amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I never saw this amendment until my hon. friend (Mr. Steele) read it to the committee a minute or so ago.


Michael Steele: Might I point out that about eight months ago this House adopted the Franchise Act in which appeared section 101, and I make this argument just to show that ,1 am not guilty of any inconsistency or departure from principle; I am endeavouring to be consistent with what the House did eight months ago. That section as adopted provided for the use, in the vote to be taken under the Canada Temperance Act in 1920, of the lists as prepared for the provincial elections in 1919. That vote was not taken in 1920. Had it been taken, this very restriction which I propose now, requiring two months residence in electoral districts, would be in the Act. I did not hear any objection to that then, and I do not think any could have been made. Why the objection should be made now, I do not understand. I am sure the amendment which I have moved is not going to assist the temperance cause in any way, because the great majority of the voters in the rural districts are, I believe, in favour of prohibition and have always so voted, and if electors in the rural districts are disfranchised, the tendency will be to reduce the vote for prohibition. That is not the point I have in mind in moving this amendment. The provision requiring local residence is a good one in any election Act, and for that reason we should preserve it for this vote which it is proposed to take.


Mr. EULER:: As regards the referendum, the main object is to ascertain the

wish of the people as a whole, not with any special reference to any particular locality as is the case in the
4	p.m. election of members of Parliament. That being so, the law should provide for as complete an expression of opinion as is possible, and for minimizing as much as possible the disfranchisement of any of the citizens. For that reason alone, I am going to vote against the amendment.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I think the vote should be taken under the Franchise Act itself. I think the idea was, when the Government proposed that the different provinces should take a plebiscite, that the vote should be ' taken under the Elections Act as it existed at that time. If that is so, I think we should stand by that idea and whatever the Franchise Act of the Dominion was at the time, it should be used in connection with the taking of this vote. If the amendment of the Minister is carried, the vote will not be taken under the original Franchise Act, but under a special Act, with special provisions in it, and that was not the idea. I venture to say that the Minister of Justice had in mind at the time that the vote would be taken in the different provinces under the Dominion Franchise Act without any amendment whatever. I understand that the effect of the amendment of the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele), is to bring us back to the original Franchise Act, and I think that is the proper thing to do. The machinery there provided should be sufficiently broad to enable everybody to vote who has the right to vote. A great deal has been said in favour of that Act as giving everybody who is qualified the right to exercise the franchise. If that be the case, I think it should be good enough to enable the people of Ontario to express their views in a plebiscite without any amendment whatever. If the amendment of my hon. friend from South Perth brings us back to the Franchise Act which we passed only last year-it is not an old Act-I will support it.


Mr. MO  WAT@: The reason given for
making a change from the original Act is the lack of experience, and if it is a fact that in Alberta and Saskatchewan the requirement as to residence in the locality has had a restrictive effect, I think, in view of their experience, it would be a pity for us to stick to what we originally enacted. We must remember that this is the Scott Act (which used to apply only to a county) now being made to apply to the province as a whole. I am also much moved by the
fact that the Minister's amendment has been discussed by the different representatives who came here, and if they are satisfied with the amendment proposed by the Government I think we would be making a mistake to change it, because they have the idea that what they approved is going to be adopted by the Government. If it is a fact, as my hon. friend from South Perth says, that it may deprive people who are living in the country of their votes, because of their moving about, that is all the more reason why we should stick to the amendment proposed by the Government after conference with these people representing both sides of the question. For these reasons, I think the amendment of my hon. friend from South Perth should not prevail.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understand that the deputation which waited on the Government asked that this change be made, so the statement of my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) is entirely beside the mark.


Mr. MOWAT:: I understood the minister to say otherwise.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In the old Scott Act as applied to a county the residence qualification and reference, not to the whole county but to the electoral district or polling sub-division. In the future, as the minister pointed out, they will go on the Franchise Act.
Amendment (Mr. Steele) negatived.


Jacques Bureau: Before the amendment of the minister carries I should like the point I raised at the outset to be settled, as to the proclamation being dated June 4. The minister stated that that was to coincide with the date of the Order in Council. Am I to understand that the date of the plebiscite was not fixed by the Order in Council? If it was not, what officer, or what minister, or what department, fixed the date for the holding of the plebiscite?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the Order in Council declared that the question would be submitted. The date for taking the vote was subsequently fixed by the proclamation, which named October 25. The date of the proclamation was made to coincide with the date of the Order in Council. The Chief Electoral Officer has given me that information, which he obtained from the late Secretary of State.


Jacques Bureau: Therefore, the Order in Council simply recognized the fact that an

application had been made by the province for a referendum. What was the necessity for an Order in Council to do that? We are left in the dark, and this whole legislation turns upon that point. I do not think it is satisfactory. I do not wish to come in conflict with my hon. friend, but I think the Order in Council was perfectly useless if it did not state that the referendum would be taken on the 18th of April, 1921. If the proclamation is based on an Order in Council that does not state the facts, it has no authority either by statute or otherwise. I think this proclamation is not worth anything, and I do not believe there is any authority in the Secretary of State to sign any such proclamation.
Mr. GUTHRIE; I am also informed that by the provisions of the Canada Temperance Act, it is enacted that the date shall be fixed by the proclamation.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask, then, what the date of the proclamation is?


Hugh Guthrie: June 4, to accord with the Order in Council. I do not know what turns upon this point, but those are the facts.


Jacques Bureau: This is what turns upon it. The Government comes to the House with this legislation and says: We did not know at the time the Elections Act was before Parliament that it would be unfair to Ontario to have a referendum in 1920, as it would disfranchise a lot of people. The date of the referendum was postponed. I say that if the proclamation was issued on the day it is dated, all the facts contained in the proclamation must have been known on that date which is the 4th of June. Now the Elections Act was assented on the 18th of July. On the 4th of June we had not passed the clause which relates to the Temperance Act. That being the case, the statement that the Act was passed not well founded, and if there was anybody to blame it was the Government, who were derelict in their duty in not passing at that time the legislation that is before us now. But I will not censure them for they have been censured enough already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On what
authority does the Government give to a proclamation a date other than that of its actual proclamation? My hon. friend, I understand, says that the proclamation was issued some time in July, but that as a matter of fact it was given out to the public as though it had been issued on the
[Mr. Bureau.!
20th June. By what authority does the Government act in this manner? What right have they to alter the date of a proclamation and to antedate it?


Hugh Guthrie: The Order in Council of the 4th June was not issued under the Franchise Act; it was issued under the Canada Temperance Amendment Act, under which it is provided that the date shall be fixed by proclamation. The Order in Council-this is my information, I have never seen it-merely provided that the question would be submitted in the province of Ontario and the western provinces according to the demand therefor. The proclamation subsequently fixed the date. I understand that the proclamation was actually issued in July, but in its date it related back to the Order in Council and bore the same date. That was the view of the late Hon. Mr. Sifton, as to the proper date which the proclamation should bear. I am stating the facts as they are related to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) contend that that is a proper procedure? What right has the Government to date back a proclamation to a time that suits its own convenience? Will the hon. gentleman seek to defend such a position?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the proclamation was regularly issued.


Jacques Bureau: According to the principle laid down by my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie), a law becoming effective from the date of proclamation would be antedated a year before it was enacted at all.


Hugh Guthrie: The date of the proclamation is the immaterial part in this case; the time for the taking of the vote is the material thing. That is what is proclaimed; it is what is vital, and I think the proclamation is regular in this instance.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend is shifting his ground. The leader of the Opposi-(Mr. Mackenzie King) asks by what right the Government can antedate a proclamation as they please. I say it is immoral for them to do so.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not say "as we please" or anything of that kind. I have only given my own opinion.
Bill as amended reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall the Bill he read a third time? If there is no objection, it may

now be read the third time; otherwise it will have to stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the Government requests that the Bill be now read, the third time.


George Green Foster: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then, Mr. Speaker, we will not offer any objection to its being read the third time at the present moment. I think, however, that the moment is appropriate again to protest against this system of rushing legislation. The rules of the House provide that every Bill should have at least three readings on three separate days. We protested last session over and over again against the habit into which the Government had fallen of introducing legislation at the eleventh hour and then rushing it through without giving hon. members of this House of Commons opportunity to deliberate thereon. This is the first piece of legislation brought forward this session, and lest the present procedure is to be construed as a precedent we might as well point out at once that strong exception will be taken to a repetition of anything of the kind.
Perhaps this may be an opportune moment to direct the attention of the Government to the fact that the amendments which we to-day have been called upon to pass are amendments to a section of the Elections Act which was considered at the very close of last session, when members of Parliament were obliged to sit far into the night and on into the morning, and when there was very little opportunity afforded for mature consideration of any legislation before the House. Had there been time for mature consideration, this neglect or oversight of the Government might not have occurred. May I further point out that at the end of last session we urged strongly that Parliament should be called at an early date this year. If Parliament had been summoned at an early date, which would have suited the convenience of all hon. members, it would not have been necessary to alter the regular procedure as has been done in this case and to rush legislation in this manner. In a few weeks' time the present fiscal year will have come to a close and we shall then be confronted, I presume, with a request from the Government that we consider granting some measure of supply without the House having any opportunity of looking at the Estimates. Let me inform the Government at once that it will
be to their own interests to bring down the Estimates as speedily as possible, because we on this side of the House will not consent to the passing of estimates without having an opportunity carefully to consider what we are called upon to vote in that connection.


Right Hon.   S@: We shall take careful note of all that my hon. friend has said. It is hard to break off old habits all at once, and if he will allow this to go through we will reform so far as succeeding ones are concerned.


Jacques Bureau: You promise anything at all.


George Green Foster: I move, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill be now read the third time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaae for an Address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the. session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Thursday, February 24.
Mr. MATTHEW ROBERT BLAKE (Winnipeg North) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising to offer my contribution to the debate on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne, I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion on the excellent speeches delivered by them on this occasion. I wish also to congratulate our Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) on his elevation to the high office which he now holds. As he is an honest man and one who is not fishing for compliments, I do not think he will suffer in any way by reason of the lack of deference shown by the hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Archambault) in his failure to congratulate him as other hon. members of the Opposition have done. I am satisfied that when history records the present period the work of the right hon. gentleman who now fills the office of Prime Minister will rank equal with the best achievements of his predecessors. This Government has been subjected to undue, unjust, and unwarranted criticism by many in this country during its term of office; but while that criticism is subsiding in the country in the light of the work of the Government, we cannot say that ma-

terial help in alleviating the present unrest has been contributed by the Opposition. The Opposition, as they did all summer, are still indulging in criticism and stirring up unrest in the country. In the old days, when over half of the population elected a Government, the majority stood behind that Government through thick and thin; and it did not matter what the Government might do or what measure might be brought forward, that majority supported the Administration unflinchingly. The shaking-up that took place in the forming of a new party in 1917 left every person free, independent, and unfettered to any party, and that being the case every one felt at liberty to criticise the Government. Hence a great deal of the present criticism. Fortunately the people of Canada are now settling down again. They thoroughly appreciate the good work which the Government has done and are beginning to applaud with much enthusiasm the splendid deeds which it has wrought. One outstanding issue, as has frequently been stated on the floor of this House, was presented in the pre-election platform of the Government-the vigorous waging of the war and the reinforcement of Canadian troops at the front. No one can deny that the efforts of the Government along these lines were most successful, for at the conclusion of the war the Canadian division stood at the very spearhead of the Allied armies. That division was undoubtedly the finest fighting corps in the Allied armies at that time and made the best record of any division. The Government deserves the highest praise for keeping the Canadian army at the fop notch of efficiency, and for prosecuting its work in that direction so effectively. The achievements of the Government were, in fact, so notable that at the end of the war Canada could easily have laid claim to the full status of nationhood. I think it was the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who said in one of his speeches when Parliament was meeting in the Museum building that no previous Government in Canada could lay claim to have fulfilled so many of its pre-election pledges within six months after the contest. The fulfillment of its pledges is one thing that must certainly be put down to the credit of the Government.
I believe it was the mover of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne who made the point that the trade of Canada per capita had expanded to a greater extent than that of any other country in the world. The expansion of Canadian commerce has not been slow and steady; year by year it

has advanced by leaps and bounds. The conditions in the country over which the Government have control must be excellent or such an unparalleled expansion of commerce would not have taken place as has taken place during the regime of the present administration. I think it can be truly stated that we have better industrial conditions in Canada than in any other country on the face of the globe. There is far less unemployment in this country and better relationship and a better understanding between capital and labour. We can only attain the progress that we should achieve in the next few years by continuing to maintain such good relations be-tweeen the two; labour realizing that capital is as necessary to its wellbeing as labour is as necessary to the wellbeing of capital. In the matter of industrial relationships this country is a model for the world at large. Our mercantile marine which has been so severely criticized made money last year, the hardest year it will ever have to encounter. This too despite the war conditions which shook up the trade routes and brought about the disorganization in the traffic that has been going on during the past few years. Our ships now sail the seven seas and sail them successfully. Our mercantile marine is a credit tc Canada.
In the re-establishment of the returned men no one can deny that Canada leads the world. In the Soldiers' Land Settlement we have trained, are giving loans to or have in training, some 64,706 men. Up to November 30, 1920, the number of veterans in communication with the Soldiers' Settlement Board was 100,000, and the number who applied for the privileges of the Settlement Act was 58,811. The nufmber of veterans qualified but not yet located was 21,975, whilst 916 were in training under supervision of the Board, and 1,444 had completed training. To those who were in training the sum of $165,150 has been paid out as pay allowances during the time they were taking the course. Under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment some 50,788 men were under training up to February 19, 1921. A careful record is kept as to the disposition of graduates. These are followed up by department officers for a period of at least four months after discharge from training, and where employment has been constant for a period of four months after being placed in employment, the same is considered permanent and the cases are closed. Up to January 31, 1921, the following information was available with respect to cases considered

closed. The total number at that time was 26,891. Of this number 19,137 or 71.6 per cent were in employment along the lines for which they were trained; 5,604 or 28.84 per cent were in employment along other lines. The total graduates in employment represented 92 per cent. Of the remainder 205 or 1.76 per cent were out of employment; 844, or 3.15 per cent, could not be traced; 749, or 2.78 per cent, had left Canada; 233, or 1.94 per, cent, were ill; and 99 or .37 per cent had died. The number of ex-soldiers on the strength of the department for treatment on February 5th, 1921, was 6,231.
I shall not bother to give the figures with respect to the disabled men who have been looked after. That information is available at the Department of the Sol- ' diers' Civil Re-establishment at any time. But I am satisfied that in the matter of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment Canada has led the world. She started her methods before any of the other Allied countries and progressed in these respects, with such rapidity and effected such excellent organization that men were sent from the United States and Great Britain to Canada to study the methods employed by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. Some 29,084 men have found employment in the Civil Service, making a total of 144,578 that have been looked after by the Government. It thus appears that nearly one-third of our army have been provided for in some way or other under the plans of re-establishment.
The provision of Soldiers' Insurance should not pass unnoticed. Under it soldiers can take out insurance without examination within a limited time. Canada leads the world too in the matter of payment of pensions. She is paying higher pensions than any of the Allied countries.
If the administration of this Government had not been so successful there might be some ground for the demand for an election. Hon. gentlemen opposite insist that the people are calling for an election but I have not heard anything whatever with respect to any such call.
The leader of the Opposition sought to make out a case against the Government where in reality no case exists. The tariff question has been made a political football for years and invariably at election time it is surrounded by a lot of camouflage. But really all are agreed on it. The speeches delivered during the West Peterborough election show the members of the Opposition to be in favour of reasonable protection. Even the leader of the Agrarian party is reported in one of his speeches to have pronounced in favour of reasonable and adequate protection. Although other issues have been raised at successive general elections the real big issue presented on every occasion has been the tariff question.
When the Liberals were elected in 1886 they reduced the tariff by .74 per cent. I find that when protection was taken off barbed wire and binder twine our Canadian manufacturers of those commodities went to the wall; and the only reason that cream separators, which were also made free, continued to be manufactured in this country was because they were being manufactured by Canadian branches of American institutions. If we had free trade to-morrow on all commodities, and two thirds of our industries went to the wall, Canada would soon regret having adopted the policy that has been put forward by the Opposition. However, I do not think the people have any fear of the Opposition ever putting their expressed policy into practice, because it is merely a platform to get in on but not to live by.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said yesterday that the prices of agricultural products were fixed in the markets of the world. Of course, and that is why Reciprocity failed, because the people appreciated the fact that Liverpool set the price of wheat irrespective of our fiscal relations with the United States. Therefore the chief plank of the hon. member for Marquette falls down, for it would be of no benefit to the Western farmer in disposing of his produce.
The hon. member also mentioned that both provincial and Federal economy was a pressing necessity if we were to improve our financial condition. Well, probably we all remember the talk that the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Allan) would give in the corridors along this line. I wonder whether the hon. member for Marquette has recommended administrative economy to the Government of Ontario. Although the chief platform of the members of that Government when appealing to the province for support was Greater Economy, the increase in the debt of Ontario since they came into power has been alarming. For example, although $6,000,000 was spent on their roads last year, I am told my hon. members from Ontario that there is practically nothing to show for that enormous expenditure. But that Government seems to be going ahead with the same lavish expenditure, probably ac-

celerated over last year's, and I think my hon. friend from Marquette would be well advised to visit Toronto now the Legislature is in session and advocate greater economy to his friends there.
He also stated that we should do more trade with the United States. But I do not see where we would benefit by that increase. At the present time we are buying very largely from the States; for example, for the ten months ended January 31, 1921, we imported goods to the value of $743,707,196, or 69 per cent of our imports and on that huge business I am told we were fined on the average 15 per cent, representing the difference in exchange. One of the prominent officials of the provincial government in Manitoba said to me after hearing the Premier speak in Winnipeg a year ago that if we had free trade the Canadian dollar would have fallen to fifty cents in a week. The more trade we do with the States the more is our dollar held at a discount, so the less trade we do with them the better. I would advocate doing less with them. I think an embargo on all manufactured articles from the States until exchange rights itself would be a very profitable thing, for then we could not be fined as we are when we do business with them, although they admit that we are the best customers they have. A greater buying of home products would make for a better condition in the Dominion. If a farmer sells $1,000 worth of products off his farm, and in return buys $1,000 worth of material, he is not getting his debt paid off. The sooner we appreciate the fact that we must buy less abroad the sooner we would be in a position to pay off our debts.	.
I have the figures of our imports for the ten months ended January 31, 1921. We imported from the United States $743, 707,196, or 69 per cent of our total imports; in the year 1919-20 we imported 75 per cent from the United States, so we are working along the right line, having already dropped down 6 per cent. From the United Kingdom we imported $185,817,499, or 17 per cent; in the year 1919-20 we imported 11 per cent, which is an improvement on our Empire trade. From other British possessions we imported $43,029,240, or four per cent; it was four per cent the year before. From other foreign countries we imported $103,034,785, or nine per cent; it was eight per cent the year before, so there is not any improvement there. The total imports amounted to $1,075,587,720. Our exports for the ten months ended January 31, 1921, were as follows:	To the United States,

$491,075,856, or 45 per cent, against 39 per cent the year before, which indicates an expansion of trade along the right line; to the United Kingdom, $281,275,105, or 26 per cent-the year before the figures was 38 per cent, and the reduction is largely attributable to British exchange, which militated against our export trade with her; to other British possessions, $80,334,417, or seven per cent, as against five per cent the year before; to other foreign countries $221,959,676, or 22 per cent, against 16 per cent the year before. Our total exports amounted to $1,074,645,054, or almost balancing our imports. I do not see how the hon. member for Marquette can urge further trade with the United States in view of the exchange rate and the resultant disadvantage against us, especially when he admitted that the prices of farm products are fixed in the markets of the world and not in the States.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crerar) stated that he would appreciate a flat declaration of policy from the Government. Why die he not make one himself? "Last year wher the Prime Minister and the leader of tht Opposition were touring Western Canadf I remember reading an illustrated article in Maclean's magazine by J. K. Munro, and one of the illustrations showed the leader of the Farmers sitting at home calmly smoking a big cigar with a wide brimmed straw hat on his head; and that is where he sat most of the summer, instead of coming out and giving us a flat declaration of policy. I think he has changed his policy two or three times since he became the leader of the Agrarian party, and still he is not prepared to give to the people that clear expression of policy which he demanded from the Government, I do not see how he could read the previous speeches from this side of the House without gathering from them a flat declaration by the Government in favour of reasonable and adequate protection-the same as he is willing to offer himself, and the same as the Opposition at Peterborough were willing to offer. The trouble is there is only one platform and everybody is struggling to get on it.
I join with the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) in pressing for an investigation into the grain dealing of the West. The report of Price, Waterhouse & Co., and the other reports we have got since on the elevators of there being something over 1,000,000 bushels of overages calls for investigation. It is admitted that the United Grain Growers and the various grain companies in the Farmers' organiz-

ation handled about 25 per cent of the grain of the West, and therefore they must have shared to a great extent in the overages which came from the pockets of the farmers. I know they are allowed a certain percentage	of overages, but
those percentages	could not have
amounted to anything like the amounts that were found	in the elevators.
Whether these are the total overages or not, God only knows; they might have shipped out a great deal of it beforehand. When the leader of the Agrarian party organized the grain growers, it was for the ostensible purpose of giving the farmers the full benefit of the sale of their produce-to give them a better price than they had ever received before and to make sure that there would be no thefts from them in the matter of shortages of wheat at the elevator. It was recognized that in the country elevator in the old days the man who could steal the most was the most valuable employee. I would like to know, and I think the country would like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the grain business in the West is being run as accurately and as honestly and as properly as it should be. I want to press most strongly for an investigation. If the leader of the Agrarian party and his various lieutenants have nothing to hide, they will welcome an investigation and support the Government until that investigation is held. If, on the other hand, they have any fears in the matter, of course it will be their policy to turn the Government out with the utmost rapidity-that is, if they are able. I doubt very much their ability to do that.
The people are looking for performances, not for promises only. This Government has handed out performances along the lines I have indicated; they have not hesitated to do what they considered best for the country. I think it was Lord Randolph Churchill who, speaking to Viscount Morley, said: "You and Balfour believe in the solution of political questions." This Government believes in the solution of political questions; the Opposition believes in beclouding them

in pretending that the country needs an election, although there is no cry for an election at all. That cry is dying down, and everybody who has kept his ear to the ground, who has kept in close touch with his constituents, must know that-every member of the Opposition must know it.
The leader of the Opposition said that he heard everywhere in the West a call for a general election. I can speak for
Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you where he heard the call for a general election in Winnipeg. The hon. gentleman issued a broadcast invitation through the press to all those opposed to the Government to meet him in Winnipeg, and then held a drawing-room in the Fort Garry Hotel. I suppose those whom he invited- that is, all those opposed to the Government-would include the O.B.U., all the agitators who might be found in the land, and a few disgruntled Liberals. One can imagine his lining them up against the wall, as a schoolmaster would his pupils, and saying to them: "Now, boys, what does the country need most? Say, 'A general election' ", and with one accord they cry out, "A general election". The leader of the Opposition did not hear from Premier Norris or his cabinet a cry for a general election. He did not hear from Mr. Edward Parnell, mayor of the city of Winnipeg, a cry for a general election. He did not hear from Frank Fowler, Isaac Pitblado or Isaac Campbell a cry for an election. All these were stalwarts of the Liberal party in Manitoba-from not one of them did he hear a cry for a general election. The only persons from whom he heard it were those opposed to the Government, which he picked up from every direction and invited to his drawing-room.
The leader of the Opposition has for nearly two years been obsessed with this idea of holding a general election and his becoming Prime Minister of this country, and that idea has become so thoroughly soaked into his cranium and into his system generally that he reminds me of some of the things which I have read in the Confessions of an Opium Eater. The Opium Eater says: "How came any reasonable being to subject himself to such a yoke of misery voluntarily, to incur a captivity so servile, and knowingly to fetter himself with a sevenfold chain?" The hon. leader of the Opposition, obsessed with the idea of obtaining power, feels that he should fetter himself with the sevenfold chain and that he should call for a general election. The Opium Eater boasts himself to be a philosopher. The leader of the Opposition puts me in mind of the old chap in the Taming of the Shrew who, when he found himself in bed, surrounded by luxury, and was assured that he was a lord, said: "And so I am a lord indeed." It is the same with the leader of the opposition; he thinks that he is a lord indeed, or is going to be as soon as he can get a general election. Last year many of his followers told me they did not want a general elec-

tion, and I do not think any of them want it this year. The Opium Eater also speaks about "creating an artificial state of pleasurable excitement." I suppose it is pleasant to the hon. leader of the Opposition to exist in a great state of excitement in connection with the idea with which he is obsessed, and to make big speeches in the House and throughout the country calling for an election. The Opium Eater also says "I do talk nonsense, not upon principle, but solely and simply because I am drunk with opium." The leader of the Opposition must surely be intoxicated with the idea of power and with the vision of himself on the pedestal as the leader of the country, or he would not talk the nonsense of a general election in the face of the general unrest in the country and the other conditions which at present exist. The Opium Eater also speaks in his dreams of foundations that were never to support a superstructure. That describes accurately the platform of the Liberal Party of 1919. He speaks also of getting into "An exalted state of irritability." Having regard to the last page or two of the hon. gentleman's speech as reported in Hansard, he must surely on that occasion have been in an exalted state of irritability. The Opium Eater also makes reference to his efforts to cut down the opium, and says that when the effect passed away he had terrible pains in his stomach. After the next general election the leader of the Opposition will find that many of his ideas have evaporated, and he will have these pains, too.
It has been said that the crucial defect in a politician is lack of fibre. Neither the leader of the Agrarian party nor the leader of the Opposition has had sufficient fibre to come out with a motion supporting his platform and laying down his policy. We on this side, during this session or at any time, would welcome any such motion on the part of the hon. gentlemen. If they have the fibre of politicians or statesmen, let them come forward and show the country what they stand for. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, go from one constituency to another with a new story for each place; as the member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) has said, they were a veritable political Santa Claus-handing out something new in every constituency they came to. Mr. Gladstone called faint-heartedness the master vice. I think that faint-heartedness is a characteristic of both of these leaders, for neither has come forward with a motion laying down the platform of his party.


Mr. McMASTER:: We will have to get Dutch courage.


Matthew Robert Blake: Hon. gentlemen can get that in Quebec over the week-end. By Monday we may expect them to have it.
Canada stands to-day on the verge of the greatest era of prosperity that she has yet witnessed, but she can only progress by showing to the world a united front. We cannot go forward if we stir up class hatred and class prejudices. But I am satisfied that the people are willing to forget these things and to settle down to sound and stable government which make for the building up of the Canada that should be. We shall have that, not by our dealing with or trusting to vague and indefinite theories and promises, but by a united, happy and prosperous Canada pursuing, with slight modifications, the same path which, during the last forty years, has built up out of the forest a virile and energetic young nation.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, not desiring to cast a silent vote on the question now before the House, I wish to engage the attention of hon. gentlemen for, I trust, but a very short time. I rise particularly for the purpose of discussing briefly the question of the tenure of this Parliament, a subject which has already been very ably and comprehensively discussed by preceding speakers. I realize fully that I must traverse a road that is now well worn, but that is unavoidable.
I trust the House will pardon a slight digression from the discourse which I have outlined for myself. Since the close of the last session of Parliament the right hon. gentleman who leads this House (Mr. Meighen) became Prime Minister of this country, and it is only natural that I should seize the first opportunity of extending to him my sincere and hearty congratulations. In 1868, when Disraeli succeeded for the first time to the office of Prime Minister in England, upon being congratulated, he said: "Yes, I have reached the top of the greasy pole." His most recent biographers have stated that no one more than he realized the difficulties of maintaining himself in that precarious elevation. It is in the loftiest peaks that we find the clouds and the snows. My right hon. friend arrives at his exalted position at a time when the political atmosphere gives a very low visibility, and I am sure that none more than he realizes the difficulties attaching to his position. Nevertheless,

I suppose many of his friends and admirers -and I concede he has many-will hope he has a reasonably secure hold of his high position, and on the other hand I suppose it is quite true that there are in this country many others who trust and hope his downfall is imminent and sudden. 'Twas ever thus and ever shall be, I suppose, in the politics of this and every other country.
As is well known to hon. gentlemen in this House, in 1917 I became a member of the Ministry of that day which was known as the Union Government. I do not in the slightest degree regret the action which I then took, and I only trust that, in the judgment of those who were associated with me, I honourably lived up to the obligations which the acceptance of that position implied. I cannot forget that, during two years or more, at an important time in the history of this country, I was associated very intimately with the Prime Minister as a colleague in the public service, and I feel I would, perhaps, be failing to perform a simple duty if I did not say, as an old colleague of the Prime Minister, that, in my observation and experience, he always carried to the discharge of his public duties, industry, capacity, talent, and, I believe, a sincere desire to render service to the State.
The amendment to the address is in the nature of a motion of want of confidence. The leader of the Opposition ( Mr. Mackenzie King) may have had many reasons for moving this amendment other than those which were contained in his remarks at the opening of the session. I have read, with some little care, his speech in support of his amendment, and I perceive in it but one basic reason upon which
5	p.m. he asks for the support of hon.
gentlemen, and that is that, under the Parliamentary system obtaining in this country and under the peculiar circumstances under which the election in 1917 took place, a dissolution of Parliament should take place at an early and appropriate time in the future. Whether I apprehend correctly or not his reason for moving the amendment, that, at least, is my position, and upon that ground I desire to support the amendment. I should have preferred, possibly, that the amendment had expressed definitely, but in general terms, the reasons which the leader of the Opposition gave in his remarks supporting his amendment. I suppose that is not, after all, very important.
I am not particularly interested in demonstrating one way or the other whether
the Government at the present moment holds the confidence of Parliament or of the Canadian electorate. If it could he demonstrated to me with some reasonable degree of conclusiveness that the Government did possess the confidence of the electorate, I still would adhere to the position which I have just stated, namely, that a dissolution of Parliament in the early future is desirable. I am not interested either in deciding whether the occupancy of office by the Government at the present moment is properly or accurately described as being a usurpation of office. I have heard it described as being analogous to the position of an overholding tenant, but I am not very much interested in deciding whether that aptly describes the situation. The precise view I wish to give utterance to is that there was an express or implied understanding with the electorate that the present Government was to be a war Government; that the present Parliament was a war Parliament, and that its life was to be measured by the petiod of the war, supplemented by such further period as reasonable men should accord it, or by such further period after the conclusion of the war, as the exigencies of time and circumstance demanded. Personally I feel obligated to that position; because at the time of the election of 1917, I committed myself in that direction. I, therefore, feel I must at this stage implement the position which I then took upon this important question. I do not care what other members of Government may have said at the same time or what it has been alleged they have said. I speak merely for myself in this matter, and I rest my position absolutely upon what I said myself, and upon the obligations to which I committed myself. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, under the system of Parliamentary and responsible Government obtaining in this country, and under the practice as we know it and have known it for many years, and in view of the unusual circumstances attending the last Federal election, it is eminently proper and desirable, in the interests of the country, that a dissolution of this Parliament should take place at an early date and at an appropriate time. At the last session of Parliament the leader of the Opposition proposed an amendment intended to have the same result as the amendment now before the House for consideration. At least, it involved the principle of the dissolution of Parliament. On that occasion I voted against the amendment. I did so with deliberation. I believe I had good

cause to support the position that I then took. I feel I am quite competent to give, anywhere, and at any time, ample reasons justifying my vote on that occasion. Involved in that, however, would be matters , more or less personal, which at this time would not interest the House in the slightest degree. Therefore, I do not intend offering to the House any defence for the position which I took last year. I think I was perfectly justified in voting as I did, and what others may think of it is of little interest to me.
Mr. Speaker, I admit quite frankly that it is quite a difficult task to induce members of any parliament to consent to a dissolution before the end of the constitutional term. Discussing a similar question on one occasion, Mr. Cobden used the following words:
I have never been able to discover what was the proper moment according to members of Parliament for a dissolution. I have heard them say they were ready to vote for everything else, but I have never heard them say they were ready to vote for that.
I realize the force of that statement, and I suppose to a greater or less degree the difficulty exists to-day, and confronts any one who attempts to argue for the dissolution of a parliament before the end of its constitutional term. In discussing this matter and supporting this amendment, I must revert to past political events, as my reasons for supporting the amendment had their source in political events of three or four years ago. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in the year 1917 the Military Service Act was passed, and that was the primary cause of the organization later on, of a coalition ministry. Without that legislation, I fancy, there would have been no unusual movement in this country away from the ordinary political and party alignments. That coalition ministry was composed of members of both political parties. Many members of Parliament and many citizens of this country were of the opinion that after the adoption of the compulsory Military Service Act it was quite natural and proper there should be a coalition ministry, and that the carrying out of legislation of that character should be in the hands of a ministry that was not composed solely of members of one political party. There is a great deal to say in support of that view. The very fact, however, that in consequence of the passage of the Military Service Act there did come into existence a coalition ministry gave the impression to a large body of the people of
fMr. A. K. Maclean.]
this country that its life should be circumscribed by the period of the war, and for perhaps a reasonable time thereafter. That impression was very prevalent at that time, and, to a very large degree, it has since continued. I do believe that in the minds of a great many of the most intelligent and respected electors of this country there rests the belief that upon this ground, if upon no other, an early dissolution of Parliament might well be contemplated by the Government.
Another section of the Canadian electorate believed then, and still believe, that in an exhausting and protracted war the administrative affairs of this or any other country should be committed to a coalition ministry. There is much to say in favour of that view. In fact, I believe it was the dominant view in this country. In the abstract, I believe, it was the universal view of the electors of Canada, and the only criticism that was made of that suggestion was that it came too late and should have been adopted at the beginning of the war, so that from the beginning to the end of that awful struggle we should not have had any evidence of extreme partisanship in the administration of our public affairs.
Mr. Speaker, I do say that when the election of 1917 came, statements were made' by newspapers, by candidates, by public men, and by private citizens, to the effect that the election was in the nature of a war election, and that the Parliament to be elected was to have certain limitations, and I submit it as my judgment, that it was not unnatural that the people of this country generally accepted that impression so given by the persons and individuals I have mentioned. It is not therefore unreasonable or unexpected, I say, to find in Canada to-day a large body of public opinion supporting a dissolution of Parliament in the early future. I do not think it is very important whether the Prime Minister made an express declaration on that point or not. I do not think it is very important what ministers of the Crown said or did not say. The important question is, what was the general impression left on the public mind from all sources, what was the general belief and understanding of the public in respect to this matter and if there was any real and substantial foundation for this belief or understanding. What was the understanding of the electorate? I submit that that is the important question, and if we can reasonably ascertain what that under-

standing was, I say it should be respected, and our course of action should present no very practical difficulties. It is, of course, difficult to present to Parliament concrete evidence upon this one way or the other. I merely wish to express what my own view of the matter is, namely-and I feel strongly and clearly in that view- that it was the belief of the Canadian electorate in 1917 that the Government elected at that time should have limitations and that the life of this present Parliament should also have distinct limitations altogether determinable by the period of the war. I have already stated that the fact that the Military Service Act was introduced in 1917 alone affords some justification for my reaching that conclusion. As a matter of fact, it was the only issue in that election. The members of the Administration of that day, I remember well, said repeatedly in Parliament that it would be the only issue. Indeed, there was no other issue; it was so entirely personal in its effect and application that in its very nature it precluded any other issue appearing in that election. And no other issue did come before the electorate on that occasion. The mere fact, I submit, of an election being confined to one issue, which issue could only exist so long as the war lasted, is a tremendous argument in favour of the placing of limitations upon the life of this particular Parliament. I cannot see how one can escape that conclusion, and I repeat again that I believe that this was the conviction of the Canadian people at that time, a conviction that still exists and that should, I think, be respected. There is another circumstance which, I think, justifies the position I now take and which affords further evidence in support of the statement I made some time ago that it was the belief of our Canadian people that the life of the Parliament elected in 1917 should have defined limitations. I refer to the War-time Elections Act. In 1917 I opposed that legislation, and a portion of my remarks upon the same have since been frequently quoted in Parliament, particularly while I was a member of the Ministry. I do not know whether these quotations from my remarks were made for the purpose of confirming my wisdom in respect of this Bill, or whether they were made with a view to demonstrating some inconsistency on my part. I might say, although it is altogether irrelevant at the moment, that I have not changed my mind in the slightest degree in respect of the War-time Elections Act. I am utterly 21
incapable of apostacy upon that point. 1 think to-day exactly as I thought then. While I considered that this legislation was mischievous and possibly dangerous, yef late in 1917 when I became a member of the Ministry, I believed that I was justified in the circumstances in subordinating my views upon this matter to a more important principle. I do not regret the views which I expressed in relation to the War-time Elections Act. I do not refer to it now for the purpose of discussing the merits of the Bill; no good purpose whatever would be served by that. I refer to it only to demonstrate the position which I seek to establish, namely, that it was a circumstance creating and determining in the minds of the people of this country the conviction that the Parliament to be elected partially under this Franchise Act was to have limitations. Now, there are certain sections of this Act which I wish to recall to the minds of hon. gentlemen. First it will be remembered that certain citizens of Canada-naturalized citizens-were disfranchised. I am merely, I say again, referring to the effect of certain provisions of the Act, and not by any means for the purpose of raising any discussion as to their merits. That was one of the provisions of the Bill. Another provision was that of temporary and arbitrarily enfranchising another section of the community. It is also to be remembered that under that Act certain classes of women were enfranchised; and I assume that every hon. gentleman who listens to me is perfectly aware of the class of women who were so enfranchised. Now, I say, these provisions of the War Time Elections Act to which I have referred by themselves alone afford a powerful and almost unanswerable argument for the view that the Parliament which enacted this legislation, contemplated limitations to the life of the next Parliament, and that its term of tenure was not to be left to the constitution nor to the determined will of the Executive of the country. For what purpose was the War Time Elections Act enacted. There need be no doubt about this. If one refers to Hansard it will there be found stated very clearly and explicitly, I think by the present Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen), and by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), that the purpose of the additional enfranchisement afforded by that Act was to secure the adoption and enforcement of the Military Service Act. The war has ended; the Military Service Act has been repealed and has been taken



root and branch from the substantive law of this country. The War Time Elections Act has been repealed utterly, and the special enfranchisements granted under that Act have been removed. I think the disfranchising provisions of that legislation have also been repealed. Almost every condition which one could imagine as dominant in that election has been removed; every possible issue that could have prevailed in that .election contest has ceased to exist. I do submit, therefore, that it is my sincere judgment that, all these things having transpired, it is but a fair and just conclusion to reach that this Parliament was intended to have and should have limitations. That, I believe, was the intention of the preceding Parliament, and I believe it to be the judgment of the people of this country. Only a great emergency could justify such legislation as the War-time Election Act and the provisions contained in that measure. I remember that the members of the Government of that day in charge of the Bill declared openly and frankly that only a war condition could justify the legislation and they openly and frankly, as I have already said, declared the purpose of it. That purpose having been accomplished; the Military Service Act having accomplished what it was intended to accomplish, or partially; the war itself having ended, there is but one conclusion, for me at least, to reach-namely that the life of Parliament should have limitations. I wish to say further, Mr. Speaker, that I do not quite accept the theory that the termination of the life of this Parliament is a matter solely resting with the Government. In my opinion it rests just as much with every member of Parliament; I think every member must settle between himself and his electors the question whether or not, under the circumstances to which I have referred, he is entitled to vote either for the early ending of this Parliament or for its further continuance.
An argument I believe has been advanced, in this House, although I have not heard any of the speeches myself-certainly it has been raised in the press and outside of Parliament-that a re-distribution of seats should precede a general election. I quite understand how a contention of the kind might arise, particularly in certain sections of the country. My own view about it is that if there are good grounds for the early dissolution of Parliament, then the re-distribution of the seats of Parliament is not an important or relevant matter. I think the contention, or suggestion, lacks every

element of conclusiveness, and in the circumstances I cannot conceive it a sound reason for delaying dissolution.


Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton) :: Would the hon. gentleman tell Frank Oliver in Edmonton to sing that song, so that we will not be held responsible for tricking the public if we have an election this fall?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon. friend may have an early opportunity of conveying that message himself and probably it would be accepted with as much grace from him as from myself. The Constitution, Mr. Speaker, makes provision for the redistribution of seats after the coming census, and we have always abided by the Constitution in this respect. Therefore I say, that when the Constitution provides for the condition we might well leave the Constitution to operate as it was intended to operate, and as it has operated in the past. The Constitution, providing for the redistribution of seats, there cannot possibly be any injustice done to any province or any section of this country. If as a general principle an election should take place before the end of the Constitutional term of this Parliament there can be no sound reason for postponing that until after a redistribution, because, as I say, the Constitution of the country makes ample provision for the event. Further, it was never intended by the Constitution that an election should absolutely take place immediately following redistribution. As a matter of fact, and as a matter of principle as well, the makers of our Constitution abstained deliberately from making any such provision. It is not a part of our political system to have fixed periods for elections; the very opposite is the case. True, the Constitution fixes a maximum period for the existence of any Parliament, but that is an altogether different thing from having fixed election periods. There is a great deal to be said in favour of having a fixed election period such as they have in the United States. It may be, that political parties in this country shall become so rigid, inflexible and autocratic that the only way to safeguard the due and proper protection of public interests, and to ensure some independence on the part of members of Parliament will be to have fixed periods of election. That, however, is beside the matter I am discussing for the reason that under the British system fixed election periods have been deliberately abstained from, and have not been incorporated into

our Constitution. I remember further the fact that in 1891, in 1900, and, in 1911 elections immediately preceded redistribution. There was no protest on the part of the Canadian electorate against such dissolution; no serious protest was heard subsequent to the election so far as I can recall; and therefore I say that it seems rather unusual to introduce the argument that redistribution should precede dissolution at the present time, particularly when there are outstanding so many strong and powerful reasons, such as I have tried to indicate, for the dissolution of Parliament within a reasonably short time. If redistribution of the parliamentary seats was within sight, I admit the contention would have force, but it is quite a distance forward.
Further, Mr. Speaker, if in now seeking to postpone an election until the redistribution we were seeking to establish and to place in the Constitution a principle that would remain there to guide us in the future and that should be enduring, perhaps there might be some force in the contention that redistribution should precede a dissolution of this Parliament. But the suggestion does not invoke any such principle. This Parliament, or the Government, might decide that redistribution should precede an election, but it would not follow that in 1931, or in 1941, or in any of the decades following thereafter, the same principle would prevail. Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that little could be gained by adopting this contention as a principle at this time, unless there was some certainty that the practice would be followed by succeeding governments after following census taking and redistribution. Consequently, there being no enduring principle in the suggestion, I question the soundness of the idea that dissolution should be postponed in order to follow the next redistribution measure.
Again, we might ask: Are there any practical advantages or disadvantages in accelerating or retarding the election so that it may precede or follow redistribution? I think not. It is suggested that the Western provinces would in the event of redistribution obtain a greater representation than they now have. If that is correct, it follows that some of the other provinces will lose a certain amount of representation, for one section of the country cannot gain without the other losing. If it is sound for Western representatives to say that dissolution is to be determinable by the fact that they are to obtain greater
21&
representation under the next redistribution and that this election should be postponed on that ground, it would be equally sound for the losing provinces to say that dissolution should precede the application of the next Redistribution Bill. If one is right the other would be right; but I say they are both wrong.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Carry that out and you would not have any redistribution at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I say that redistribution will come at the proper time and according to the period fixed by the constitution, and that shall alford ample protection for Parliament and for the people. Whether there should come dissolution earlier than redistribution is determinable on other grounds and principles.
Now the statement that the next redistribution should absolutely precede a dissolution disregards other factors, and is suggestive of territorial predominance or strength which is hardly desirable. It is suggestive of the theory that only through might is right obtainable. I make bold to say, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the expressed views of some hon. gentlemen from the Western provinces, that this view does not convey the real opinion of the Western country. It would be strange if at this particular period there should be manifested so strong and inflexible a view in the Western provinces for redistribution that they would forego the early acceptance of a principle which seems to be strongly asr '"ted there by all classes, namely, th? there should be an early election. It ,/ould seem strange that they would forego the early application of that principle for an advantage in electoral representation which after all would not amount to so much, and which in any event will soon come.
I think it also might be said in very truth, that no western interests, nor the interests of any other section of Canada, will suffer by reason of the fact that an election might possibly take place before dissolution. I am sure no province really suffers from under-representation. I do not think any hon. member would have the hardihood to say that the representatives from the Western provinces are so unduly modest that they refrain from giving expression to western thought, western aspirations, and western wants. I think they are as aggressive and as insistent as representatives from the other provinces in placing before Parliament what they

conceive to be the interests of their particular section of Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I do wish to emphasise once more that if upon any possible principle there should be a dissolution of Parliament considerably ahead of the end of the constitutional period, then the contention that we should await a redistribution after the census which is about to take place, is one which has no firm or sure foundation and should not be invoked as an answer to the demand for an early dissolution.
I shall not detain the House any longer upon the amendment or upon the motion. I think I have said substantially what I intended to say when I arose to my feet. I have necessarily been covering ground which has been stated and restated several times during the course of the debate. My only purpose in engaging the attention of hon. gentlemen for a little time this afternoon was to enable me to place before them the reasons which move me to support the amendment, and having done this, my remarks are concluded.
Mr. FRANK S. SCOTT (South Waterloo) : Mr. Speaker, I desire to join with others who have preceded me in this debate in extending my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for the excellent speeches which they delivered. So much has been already bestowed upon them in the way of eulogy that I feel it is unnecessary for me to go further in this direction.
I wish also to join with the other speakers in extending to the Prime Minister my congratulations upon his being called to the high office which he now occupies. I feel that the people of Canada already know that he has splendid qualifications for the position, and I believe that in the fulfilment of his duties he will live up to the best traditions of Canadian statesmanship.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two with regard to the speech delivered yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Marquete (Mr. Crerar). In his opening remarks he stated that he saw no constructive ideas in the speeches of the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition. If I were to endeavour to sum up the speech which he himself delivered, it seems to me that I could with almost equal force say that after all it contains very little that might be described as constructive. It is true that he alluded during the course of his remarks to quite a number of questions that are attracting attention

throughout the country at this time, but I fail to see where he introduced anything into the discussion of these questions that was at all constructive. If I were to pass an opinion upon his speech in a general way I should say that it was most pessimistic in its tone and that it was given over almost entirely to fault-finding.
The hon. gentleman made some reference to the railway situation, but he did not offer anything in the way of constructive suggestion or express any particular view as to how the present situation should be met. It is true that he did say that at no very distant date we should have a revaluation of our railways. But I think that in one of the first speeches delivered in this House by the present Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) he said that that was one of the things that might in the future require the attention of the House. But a revaluation of our railways at the present time would not alter the present situation one iota. Our national railways are not earning sufficient to pay operating costs, and it makes no difference whether the capital cost of our railway system is $200,000,000 or whether it is a one dollar bill. There is not a great deal, therefore, in a contention of that kind.
The hon. gentleman also tried to bring it home to the House that there had been a lack of economy in the administration of the public affairs. With that suggestion I do not at all agree. I am satisfied that the Government has in every way tried to practise economy in the administration of the different departments. But I should like to offer one suggestion to my hon. friend, the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake) made an allusion to it. The member for Marquette was one of those who were instrumental in bringing into power a Farmers' Government in Ontario. I join with the member for North Winnipeg in suggesting that the member for Marquette get in touch with the Premier and the leaders of the Ontario Government and that he have a heart-to-heart talk with them regarding the financial situation. I know that political opponents very often attempt to take advantage of a situation like this, but I do not speak of the matter from the political standpoint. I want to assure the hon. member that financial men are to-day very deeply concerned about the manner in which the Farmers' Government in Ontario have been administering the financial affairs of that province. This problem is one of the most serious ones

that at present confront the people of Ontario.
The hon. member also said that what we required in Canada at the present time on the part of the Administration was a policy of vigour, determination, efficiency and courage. I am sure that we all join in that sentiment, but these words, coming from the lips of the member for Marquette, mean more than would seem on the surface. They mean, in the first place, that the present Government are lacking in these very desirable attributes and that if the leader of the Agrarian party were called upon to administer the public affairs he would be able to supply that deficiency. Now, I have no desire to detract from the ability of the member for Marquette. He at one time held the portfolio of Agriculture in the Government, and I have no reason to suppose that he was anything else than a very capable administrator. But I am not prepared to say that among the hon. gentlemen who were with him at that time in the Government he was such an outstanding figure or was a man of such superior ability that he can now offer to this country an administration such as it requires. I admit his capability, but great as it may be, I do not think there was anything in the administration of his department while he was a member of the Government that would justify the people in thinking that he is the man who should in the future take charge of the administration of the country's affairs.
As I listened to the hon. member's remarks it occurred to me that the situation which confronts us at present is similar to that which existed in Ontario just prior to the last election. Hon. gentlemen will remember that there was a great deal of class feeling and class consciousness; that we heard a great deal about the grievances of the farmers and were told that when the farmers came into power they would remedy those grievances. Now, a Farmer Government was returned in Ontario, and for a considerable length of time has been carrying on the affairs of that province. They have had one session of the legislature and they are now having a second. But notwithstanding the fact that thejr represented themselves as a class suffering under great disabilities and having many grievances awaiting only the opportunity for their adjustment, up to the present not a single Act has been passed in the legislature, much less any measure introduced, having for its object the amelioration or
lessening of any grievances under which the farmers were alleged to have been suffering. For myself, I have no sympathy with the idea that everything is bad in the two old political parties. But I am confident that if the hon. member for Marquette and the Agrarian party were by any chance called upon to carry on the affairs of this country they would not, as was the case with our friends in Ontario, when faced with the responsibilities of office, be able to carry things on very differently.
During the course of this debate we have heard a great deal about the Government's mandate to carry on the affairs of the country. This afternoon we heard from the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who is a lawyer and who arrived at one conclusion. We heard this same question discussed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), who was, like the hon. member for Halifax, at one time a member of this Administration, and we find these two gentlemen, both no doubt well posted and thoroughly conversant with public affairs, arriving at two entirely different conclusions. The hon. member for Marquette says that the Government has a mandate, while the hon. member for Halifax says that the Government has no mandate. I am not a lawyer; but I have my idea regarding this question, and if I were to sum it up briefly, it would be this. I was a candidate for Parliament in 1917, and there was absolutely no conditions or reservations in that candidature. I was elected for a Parliament, and I consider it my duty to continue in my seat in this House until the Government of the day sees fit to dissolve this Parliament. Having heard the opinions of legal men on both sides of the House,. I may say that this debate might be continued throughout the entire session, but I am convinced as regards my position and that is all I need satisfy myself about at this time.
For some time past we have been hearing about the necessity for a general election. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) says that there has been and is a widespread demand for an election. Speaking once again only for myself, I must disagree with him; my experience has been that the people with whom I have come into contact in my part of Ontario, and more particularly the business people of that province, are strongly opposed to a dissolution of Parliament at the present time, and for a very good reason. We all know that business conditions in this country during the past year have not been what we would like them to be. Business

has been bad, very much disorganized. Canada, like all other countries in the world, is now passing through that period of reconstruction that we all expected. Unemployment exists; in many places our industries are idle, and the feeling in Ontario is this, that it would be nothing short of a national crime for the Government of this country to precipitate a general election at this time.
At six o'clock the House took recess.'
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. SCOTT (Resuming) :: Mr. Speaker,
when the House rose at six o'clock I was giving certain reasons why I believed it was inadvisable for the Government to make an appeal to the country during the past year. There is one other point that I might perhaps make in that connection, and I make it more particularly for the benefit of the leader of the Opposition. I wish to tell him that in my own constituency Liberals, men engaged in business, and prominent in their various walks of life, who in days gone by gave their allegiance to the party which he to-day leads, have been the most outspoken in expressing a desire that there should be no appeal to the country at the present time.
I pass on now to deal with the amendment which was introduced by the leader of the Opposition. His amendment is to the effect that the Government does not possess the confidence of the House, or the confidence of the country. With regard to the first point, the question whether the Government possesses the confidence of the House will be finally decided when the vote is taken, in a few days, no doubt. That will provide a proper answer to that question. As to whether the Government enjoys the confidence of the people of this country that, after all, as the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. MacLean) stated this afternoon, is, and can be at best, only a matter of opinion, and in that connection I must say that there is a very great difference of opinion.
If I were looking for an opinion upon a question of that kind it does not seem to me that I would be likely to go to gentlemen situated as are the Opposition. I submit that you could go into any legislature in Canada, and perhaps into any parliament in the world, and not find it a difficult task to persuade those who were sitting in opposition, partisans, that the government to which they were opposed
r.Mr. Scott.]
did not enjoy the confidence of the people of the country. But I do not take a great deal of stock in opinions on that question from such a source. While there may be a difference of opinion as to whether the Government of this country enjoys the confidence of the people, I think there is small room for doubt whether the leader of the Opposition and the party which he leads enjoy the confidence of the people. It seems to me that the most superficial observer of the present political situation must be impressed with the fact that, aside from the province of Quebec, the Opposition are not in very high favour at the present time.
We have heard a very great deal from the leader of the Opposition about the defections that have taken place from the Government side of the House, and in that no doubt he is in a measure correct. But I do not see how it can afford him much consolation, because, if one looks across the floor of the House and among the members who sit under his leadership, one cannot see that he has made any very substantial gains duing the last few years. While there have been defections for certain reasons, the men who have seen fit to cross the floor of the House have been loath, indeed, to place themselves under his leadership.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I have been much impressed by his speeches both in this House and outside. One would think to hear his speeches that recruits, not only in this House, but from one end of the country to the other were flocking to his banner. It is difficult to understand how he can think so. His attitude reminds me of the days when as a boy I used to spend my vacations on the farm. One of the most enjoyable things I remember doing in these days was to go out and gather the eggs. Sometimes, when we were looking for eggs, we would come across a clucking hen. We would take hold of her and toss her out into the barnyard. She would ruffle up her feathers, spread her wings, and make a great fuss. It is a most peculiar thing, but do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if there were a thousand small chickens in that yard, she would imagine that she owned every one of them. And so it is with the leader of the Opposition. He looks over this House and over the whole country and seems obsessed with the idea that ail the political chickens that are passing to and fro are ready to join him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are
getting fewer on the other side, at a)1 events.


Frank Stewart Scott: Before six o'clock I gave
a few reasons why I did not believe it was desirable, or in the interests of this country, that there should have been a general election during the past year. So far as I personally am concerned, I think that is a matter which should properly be decided by the Government of this country, and again, so far as I am concerned, if the Government should decide to dissolve Parliament and make an immediate appeal to the country, I shall be perfectly satisfied, but I believe that dissolution should come about in a proper and constitutional way, and should not be dictated by the leader of the Opposition.
I have no doubt that the constitutional course will be followed.
I feel, however, that before we have an appeal to the country there are a few things which should receive attention, and I should like to point out in that connection that there are certain things which should receive the attention of the leader of the Opposition before the electors are called upon to make a decision between the two political parties. One of the points I have in mind is this : I would like to ask the leader of the Opposition if he has entered into any alliance or understanding with the Agrarian party. I would like to go a little further and ask him this question: If not, does he propose to do so either before or after the election? I ask that because I believe it is going to have a most important bearing upon the result of this election, and it is only fair that the people of the country should understand perfectly not only where the Government stands but just where the Opposition is at this time.
The leader of the Opposition has said that the policy of the Agrarian party and that of his own party are practically identical. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if the two parties opposite stand for the same principles there is no necessity for their separate and individual existence. If their principles are identical, why should we not have one Opposition party and let the people of Canada make their decision between that party and the party represented on this side? The answer which the leader of the Opposition will give to the questions I have submitted would, I claim, make a vast difference in the situation in the province of Quebec. I listened with a great deal of interest the other day to the speech delivered to the hon. member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. Gauthier) because, while I confess that I do not have very much opportunity of coming in contact with the public men in the neighbouring province of
Quebec, I have during the last two years been brought very closely into touch with a large number of business men in that province; and I want to say that in my conversations with those men from time to time I have found that they give candid expression to practically the same sentiments as those uttered the other day by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe.
Now, the hon. gentleman in his speech covered a great deal of ground, and if I were asked to summarize that speech in a few words I would say that the message he brought to this House was that he was not prepared, in the name of Liberalism, to be led into an alliance with the Agrarian party for the reason that he did not believe in their policy and in their principles. I want to emphasize once again that the sentiments that have been expressed to me on very many occasions, not by men who had any political purpose to serve but by unbiased men of prominence and weight in the province of Quebec, who were only interested in the welfare of this country, are in keeping with the whole trend of the speech delivered by my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe.
Gentlemen on the other side of the House following that hon. member endeavoured to reply to him, but I submit that while there have been interchanges of personalities there has been no serious attempt on the part of hon. members opposite to review the statements made by the member for St. Hyacinthe. I venture to say that, if an issue of that kind were faced fairly and squarely before the people and were decided on its merits, the leader of the Opposition would find after the next general election that he would not have the bulwark of which he boasts at the present time-a solid province of Quebec. I confess that I have my doubts at this time as to whether that issue is going to be fairly and squarely placed before, and decided upon its merits by, the people of the province of Quebec. We have only to listen to the speeches that are delivered by hon. gentlemen opposite to discover the effort that is being made and the well defined plan that is being followed in order to becloud the issue.
What is the situation? One gentleman after another has risen in his place and has represented to the people of his constituency-for their speeches are intended for distribution there, and it is there that they will have their effect-that the Prime Minister of this country (Hon. Mr. Meighen) is a man who is an enemy to the province of Quebec and has missed no op-

portunity of casting scorn and discredit upon them; and hon. members opposite try in that way to becloud the issue and cover up the true issue which should be placed before the people of Quebec in the next election.
Now, one of the things which I have learned since becoming a member of this House is that a public man must needs be very careful in any statements that he makes. There are acute minds on both sides of the House, and I have found that very often a word or a sentence uttered in some long-forgotten debate is at the appropriate time recalled by men of retentative memory in order to destroy an argument or confuse political opponents. The right hon. gentleman who to-day fills the position of Prime Minister of this country has been for a number of years in public life, and from the time he entered the House of Commons, I think in the year 1908, he has been a marked man. Political friends and political foes alike said, from the day he first entered Parliament, that he would travel far; and they have not proven false prophets, because the hon. gentleman to-day occupies the highest and most distinguished position in the gift of the Canadian people. Mr. Speaker, the point in that connection which I want to make is that when hon. gentlemen opposite make insinuations and try to represent the Prime Minister of this country as one who has slandered the French race and the province of Quebec, it is no wonder that we, his friends, challenge them to produce the evidence. Is there any hon. gentlemen who, if he believed that one single sentence could be found that would bear out this contention, would not produce it and quote it on the floor of the House? Now, Sir, that method of warfare, I am sorry to say, is not confined within the precincts of this House, nor is it confined to the province of Quebec. A great national newspaper in Ontario, the Toronto "Globe," made a similar reference to the Prime Minister some months ago. That newspaper was invited to produce the proof to substantiate its statements at that time, but up to the present it has failed to do so.	1
Now Mr. Speaker I pass from that subject. There is one other matter to which I would like to refer at this time. I would like to direct one more question at my good friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I have always held that hon. gentleman, and I assure him I do so still, in the very highest esteem. I always listen with a great deal 
of interest to his speeches, and never miss an opportunity of hearing him, because he is such a master of parliamentary eloquence. I remember well the speech which he delivered in the Budget debate of 1918, which speech suggests the question that I would now like in all kindness to put to him. The question is this: I would like to know how the member for Red Deer views the prospect-perhaps at the present time more than a prospect-of an alliance with the party led by the leader of the Opposition. I ask this because of statements made by the hon. member in the speech in question. I re-read the speech the other day and I will just quote a few sentences from it. I think that all the members of the House might well read that speech with interest, but at present I wish only to quote a few sentences for their consideration. At that time the hon. gentleman was speaking as a supporter of this Government and from this side of the House. Addressing himself to hon. gentlemen opposite he said:
I conducted a missionary enterprise of persistency and consistency for years in the ranks of gentlemen opposite. When they were in power I sat in the colony and made attempts at their education,-the moment I mentioned the rights of the farmers or anything relating to low tariff I want it recorded as my distinct impression that I saw nothing but frowns upon their faces. And the reason was this-they came into power practically a professing free-trade party. They certainly did take the duty off cream separators. I worked that free cream separator on 'Western platforms until my arm was actually aching. They took the duty off binder twine. 'Sir, I threaded binder twine until there was not a fibre between my fingers. They introduced the British preference, and as long as I could I kept trying to defend my own constituency for sitting in such a Liberal party by praising the British preference, turning the free trade cream separator and fraying binder twine. That having been done, what is their subsequent record? After early attempts at tariff reduction, hon. gentlemen sat back, enjoying luxurious office, drawing their salaries with promptitude and basking in the smiles of those gentlemen whom I would never describe as bucaneers, basking in the smiles of these bucaneers and companies that my hon. friend (Mr. .Lemieux) denounced this afternoon in a voice which reared itself to the sky.
A little further on, Mr. Speaker, I find this sentence in the same speech:
I do not think I need to say any more to explain to my hon. friends where they are so far as Western Canada is concerned. Western Canada did not quite believe in their sincerity because Western Canada knew their record.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to say. I believed, and I still believe, in the consistency, the earnestness, and the

sincerity ol! my good friend the member for Red Deer. I cannot think that he is altogether satisfied with the way things are drifting in public life in this country, and while I am prepared to believe that the hon. gentleman has played an important part in bringing the Agrarian party into the position which it occupies to-day, I do not think that his counsels are given very serious consideration by the men who are directing the destinies of that party.


Mr. J. F. REID (Mackenzie) :: Mr. Speaker, in rising at this late period of the debate it will be very hard indeed for me to avoid making reference to subjects which have already been dealt with. I shall not attempt to present any more bouquets to the mover and seconder of the Address but will simply say that I agree with all the good things that have been uttered with respect to them. I extend, however, my hearty congratulations to the Prime Minister, for more reasons than one, on the very rapid rise which he has made in the public life of Canada. The right hon. gentleman told me himself, not so very long ago, that he was born on a small farm in the province of Ontario.


Mr. HOCKEN:: That is the place.


John Flaws Reid: True, that is the place
where the boys that climb the ladder of fame are born. The right hon. gentleman said of this little farm where he was bom, that the trees were so thick between the house and the concession road in the days of his youth that he could not see the teams as they passed up and down. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that on that farm the right hon. gentleman who to-day leads the Government learned the lessons of stick-to-itiveness that have helped him to climb to his present high position.
The old province of Ontario has good reason, Mr. Speaker, to be proud to-day not only because our worthy Prime Minister was born within its precincts, not only because of the great success that he has achieved in public life and the character which he has maintained, which has been referred to by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, but it also has reason to be proud of the fact that another Prime Minister was born on one of its farms. I refer to the hon. Mr. Drury, the Premier of the province. Mr. Speaker, there is yet another farmer's boy. I refer to the hon. T. A. Crerar, leader of our party, who was bom on a farm in the province of Ontario, and who can tell but that in a very near future he may be the leader of this House. The present Prime
Minister has climed to his high position in a little less, I understand, than thirteen years. Someone found him in a little town in the province of Manitoba, because then Portage la Prairie was not a very large community. At that time the right hon. gentleman was a budding young lawyer in Western Canada; and I want to say to young members of the House that he has set the pace; he has set an example, for young men throughout the Dominion, and what he has done they also may do. But Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that if they would follow in his footsteps and climb the ladder of fame as speedily as he has done they will not sleep on a bed of roses, neither will they spend much time in slumber, but rather they will have to burn the midnight oil. I wish him long life, happiness and prosperity. But, Sir, I hope that he will forsake the big interests and come back to the common, plain people whence he sprung and apply the same energies which he now brings to bear in discharging the duties of his high office.
I notice that when the right hon. the Prime Minister was choosing a new name for his old party he took the word "National" from the platform of the National Progressive party, and I have often wondered why he did not also include the word "Progressive." Then he would have the National Progressives, the Liberals and the Tories all in one fold. How nice that would be! But on second thoughts-which are very often the best- I believe my worthy friend decided to say to his nearest followers: "No, gentlemen, it will not do; water and oil will not mix; leave them out."
I am going to endeavour to show to the House that this Government is allied with the big interests, because the first act of the right hon. the Prime Minister was to nail his protectionist flag to the masthead of his party ship, and that, to my mind, was a friendly signal to the big interests. His banner of protection is also their banner, and he says to them in effect: "Come with us. This is the ship of protection that will protect you and your industries. Come with us. We need you, and you need us. We need your millions of money for our campaign fund to fight the Liberals and the Progressives." And he also says to Labour: "Come with us in this ship. It is big enough for us all, and we will take you in and protect you." But he forgets to tell labour when he is flirting with them that for the protection which he offers he

will exact an equivalent by making them pay more for their boots and shoes and for their clothing, and for all the comforts of life which they now enjoy. I do not know -he may get the labour vote, but I hope not. I hope that labour will keep their eyes open and see the folly of going in my good friend's protectionist ship.
I am going to continue along that line of thought, Mr. Speaker, and tr/ to show to this House that the big interests are behind this Government and allied with it. I shall endeavour to demonstrate that the intermediary of the big interests, Mr. Murray, of the city of Toronto, is conducting a well-organized boycott in an attempt to muzzle the press of this country, and so keep from the people all the facts both pro and con which should be honestly presented to them that they may give an intelligent vote on the public questions of the day. But will the people be able to pass an intelligent verdict if the press is to be dictated to by Mr. Murray? I think not. This attempt by Mr. Murray to control our press is being made on behalf of the manufacturers, who, as I have said before, are allied with this Government; but the attempt, in my opinion, will prove a boomerang to those who are conducting and supporting it.
The people of Canada will not stand for such dictation. They know that this boycott which Mr. Murray is carrying on with a well-organized and expensive staff, is simply along these lines; in effect, he says to the manufacturers by circular letters: "Send in to me your estimates of what you are going to spend for advertising, and I will name the newspapers which shall get your advertising." Then he says to the press: "Unless you will submit to me the control of your editorial pages, you cannot have any of these advertisements." That, in substance, is the system employed, and I defy contradiction of my statement.
I will pass over the subject of protection mentioned in the speech from the Throne and deal with vital matters-matters in my opinion equally as important as protection-which are not mentioned therein. We have had before us for a number of years a project especially dear to Western Canada-the Hudson's Bay railway.
Not one word is in the Address about this project-a project on which we have spent about $20,000,000. There all this material lies to-day, going to waste, and the Government, heedless of the pleadings of the people from the West, do not say one

word in regard to what is to be done with the Hudson Bay railway. I shall not tarry on this question; the people of the West will speak for themselves in regard to it when they get the opportunity.
Another matter of very great importance, Mr. Speaker, is our Canadian National Railway system. In this case also not one word appears in the Address as to what is to be done in the direction of an attempt to reduce our railway deficit or even to see that it does not climb higher year after year. And while our railway deficit is piling up, it is a well known fact that, in Western Canada at any rate, the traffic which rightly belongs to the Canadian National Railway system is being hauled away from that railway and being handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway. Why? Well, I will try to explain as briefly as possible.
Last fall in Western Canada we had only about a thirty per cent crop, but in spite of that, our threshing machines, especially in the northern districts of the three Prairie Provinces, had not been in operation more than two weeks until every country elevator was full of grain-and not a box-car in sight to haul the grain out. Now, this is what happened-and what I say here is simply the sentiment of the people in my constituency and in the other three Prairie Provinces, the northern part of which is served by the Canadian National system. The reason was simply the lack of sufficient box-cars to carry the grain out to the market.
Last fall the grain market was dropping very rapidly and the farmers were naturally anxious to get their grain out to market. But they could not get the cars and, therefore, could not sell their product at that time, so that they could not pay their indebtedness and, consequently, the business man could not pay his. When the farmers did get the box-cars to take the grain out, the price had dropped to such an extent that it was impossible for them to pay their debts and come through, and on that account the farmers in Western Canada to-day are in a state of semi-bankruptcy. How long, Mr. Speaker, is this state of things to continue?
I asked the Minister of Railways last year and the previous year about box-cars, and he said that he had ordered two thousand of them. I thought that was a fairly good order, but when I began to think it over quietly I realized that these two thousand box-cars would have to be strung out over 22,000 miles of railway-

a pretty thin sprinkling. I called at the office of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in Winnipeg and had a chat with one of the Canadian Pacific officials. I said to him: "Will you tell me how many box-cars you have ordered for the Canadian Pacific Railway in the last two years?" To my astonishment he told me they had ordered six thousand new boxcars-xiot replacements-to be used on
14,000	miles of railway; and my good friend the Minister of Railways orders two thousand box-cars to be spread out over 22,000 miles of railway.


John Flaws Reid: As a member of this House my hon. friend should know, from the explanations I have given each year, that the Government ordered 18,000 boxcars during the last three or four years, while the Canadian Pacific has not ordered any more than my hon. friend has mentioned.


John Flaws Reid: I am very much pleased to hear that. But where, oh where, Sir, are the 18,000 box-cars? They are not in the West.


John Flaws Reid: Well, they are on the road. '


John Flaws Reid: Evidently the road is a very long one; they are taking a long time to get there. But if my hon. friend says that that many have been ordered, I take his word for it, and I hope he will speed them up and get them out there. I am told by railway experts that it is the freight train that pays, not the passenger train, so that if we are to reduce our deficit we must increase our freight traffic. That is the opinion of a prominent railway official; it is not merely my own personal view.
The grain blockade of which I speak has had a very serious effect upon the country. It affects not only the farmers, but also the business men, the wholesale men, the retail men, the banks, and the manufacturers. The manufacturer cannot sell his psoducts unless the wholesale man can pay his debts; the wholesale man must go to the retail man, and the retail man to the consumer-who out West is very largely the farmer. If, then, the 'farmer cannot get his products to the market, he cannot pay his debts; the wheels of business are simply at a standstill; all business is stagnant. I am glad to be informed by the Minister of Railways that he has ordered 18,000 box-cars. I shall be pleased if he will inform me just how soon they are going to reach the West.
I wish now to make a few corrections of statements made last night by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. G. B. Nicholson). The hon. gentleman made a rather bitter and unwarranted attack upon the United Grain Growers, Limited. He was very much mixed up. Some one had informed him that a certain gentleman by the name of Mr. Wood was the vice-president of the company. I do not need to dwell on that; the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) put him right in that regard. But this is what the hon. gentleman says:
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to admit, that it would be exceedingly difficult for any man to say just who is associated with the United Grain Growers' Company and who is not.
Well, it will not be difficult at all if the hon. gentleman will seek the information in the proper place. I would invite him to go west with me to the headquarters of the company in Winnipeg. I believe, Sir, I can show the hon. gentleman the name of every shareholder of the company, as well as a statement of the moneys which they have put into it. I want to tell my hon. friend that there is not one dollar of watered stock credited to our shareholders -and perhaps from that my hon. friend might learn a lesson. He will, however, have to be very patient, because we have over 36,000 shareholders, and if he also wishes to know the names of the customers who deal with the company, it will take him a very long time to look over all the records of the company. But we have nothing to hide, and my invitation to my hon. friend to accompany me to the West stands good.
The hon. gentleman spoke about the different names which this Progressive party is called; in fact, he tried to make out that we call ourselves the Agrarian party and the Progressive party; we do not; we call ourselves the National Progressive party, and I think that name is very applicable. My hon. friend goes on to say:
I said a moment ago that you could not suggest a more violent misuse of terms than those titles. What has been their attitude towards the farmers of this country?
I should like to inquire just what the hon. gentleman means by this strong language. As I said before, we do not apply those titles to ourselves, and if hon. members or any other persons apply those terms to us, we cannot help that; we prosper under it; it is cheap advertising to us, and our people rally all the more to the cause.

My hon. friend was entirely misinformed as to the class of goods which the company handles. These are the words he uses in connection with that:
Feed, clothing, machinery, fuel, and everything else.
That is a very wide order, is it not? We handle many commodities, but we do not handle such a wide range as the hon. member for Algoma East would have people believe. He says:
The United Grain Growers' Limited-.
And he is getting nearer the name all the time. That is the proper name.
carry on a sort of letter order business.
I will take it for granted that by "letter order business" he means, perhaps, a mail order business. Then he says:
They write a letter to some milling company and ask them to forward a car of flour to some farmer or group of farmers with draft attached to bill of lading. In this way they handled, without the cost to them of a single cent, something over a million dollars' worth of flour, and they collected from the farmer between eighty cents and one dollar a barrel as their rake-off for doing it.
I ask hon. members who are business men, who know something about business: Is it possible to have an office with a staff of clerks and stenographers to receive orders from 36,000 shareholders, with a very large number of patrons who are not shareholders, to collect those orders, to attend to the mails, to send the orders on to a large milling company-we deal with more than one milling company-and to conduct all this business without one cent of cost to the company? I am surprised that my hon. friend should make such a statement as that. The other year I had the pleasure of working on a committee of this House with him, and I had a very high estimation of my hon. friend, but, I am afraid I must revise that estimate.
As regards the commission charged on the flour, out West we do not handle flour by the barrel, nor do we speak of it by the barrel. It is handled in bags of 9 p.m. 100 pounds and we speak of it as such. My hon. friend, before making this attack, would have been well advised, knowing me so well, to have come to myself, and I could have supplied him with this information. I have in my room upstairs several annual reports of the company, showing everything in detail, and my hon. friend is welcome to have those reports at any time. I should like him to be properly informed.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: He does not want to know.


John Flaws Reid: It would seem to me
that he is imbued with the faculty of believing without a reason and the faculty of hating without a cause. If he would divest himself of all those passions which cloud his intellect and warp his understanding, he would see things from a higher plane; his perspective would be clearer, and his troubled soul would rest and live in peace.
My hon. friend goes on to befriend Mr. Murray who is conducting this boycott of the press. Again I must say I am sorry my good friend will even for one moment try to defend such an action as the muzzling of the press, which is the medium through which the people in the distant parts of Canada must be informed as to what is being carried on here. That my good friend will support such an action, I am astonished.
Towards the last, my hon. friend changes his mind, and I am very glad for that. He says:
I said in this House last year, and I repeat to-night, that no honest man has any right in the world to criticize in the least degree the business that the Western Grain Growers are doing. So far as I am able to discern, they are carrying on an honest business; they are the largest commercial organization that ever came into existence in this country; but when they are doing that, what right have they to come down into eastern Canada or to go any other place in their efforts to set class against class in this country or to tell me that I am not carrying on an honest business; that I am extracting undue profits from the people ; that I am oppressing the workingman; that the farmers are not getting their rights? I say that the whole thing is a campaign of blatant hypocrisy.
That is very strong language. My hon. friend is very parochial; he thinks the people of Canada must remain within; and not travel beyond the bounds of their respective provinces. Out West we are not as narrow-minded as that; we welcome our friends from theh eastern provinces to come West and hold meetings and talk with us in order to explain to us their point of view on the public questions of today. Surely my hon. friend would not deny us a similar privilege to come dowp East. I do not think he would insist in his objection. I trust therefore, he will not forget my invitation.
I have rather an unpleasant duty to perform. The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Guthrie) appeared before an audience in the city of Toronto. I have here a clipping from the Manitoba Free Press. It is headed:
Says Farmer Party menace to Canada. Guthrie charges it was started in the West by American settlers. Only party the Federal Government need fear, he declares.

The clipping, which is dated Toronto, February 6, reads:
Declaring that free trade would ruin Canada, and intimating that it was not the Liberal party the Federal Government need fear at the next Dominion election, but the Farmer party, Hon. Hugh Guthrie, Minister of Militia and Defence, in the Meighen Government at Ottawa, addressed the South York Conservatives at their annual meeting here Saturday.
On the tariff question Mr. Guthrie said that under no circumstances could Canada afford to have free trade with the TJ. S. Canada as a nation, and Canadians as a people, would become bankrupt under free trade, he declared, and the next general election would be fought out on the question of protective tariff.
Menace to Canada is Charge.
Mr. Guthrie asserted that the farmer party in the west was started by American settlers, and the organizers of the western farmers were American sympathizers. He produced a catalogue published by the Western Grain Growers to substantiate this charge. In this catalogue, he said, were numerous lines of farm implements listed as "U. G. G. (United Grain Growers) goods" but which were really American-made.
The ploughs listed in the catalogue, Mr. Guthrie said, were made in Wisconsin; harrows, cultivators, mowers, etc., in Illinois; portable engines and washing machines in Pontiac, Ills.; cream separators in Buffalo, N.Y.; and wagons in Iowa. "In the lines of goods which I have mentioned, which are called "U. G. G. goods," Mr. Guthrie said, "there is not a Canadian ar-tide catalogued."
Mr. Guthrie declared that the farmer party in western Canada was not only a menace to the present Government at Ottawa, but also to the future of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to read an interview given by Mr. Rice-Jones, General Manager of the United Grain Growers, to the Winnipeg Tribune of February 7th, 1921:
The Hon. Hugh Guthrie's statement as reported in a dispatch is incorrect. He states there is not a Canadian article in the machinery litsed In our catalogue as United Grain Growers. Even the list of machinery which he specifically mentions as being manufactured in the United States is incorrect. Mowers and rakes and wagons, for instance, are all purchased in Canada. In fact, we have not purchased a wagon in the United States for three years.
We were forced to buy in the United States in the first place because Canadian manufacturers refused to sell us, and there are still some Canadian manufacturers who absolutely refuse to deal with us.
Of 101 pages in our catalogue only slightly over one-third cover American-made goods. We have always aimed to purchase everything we could purchase in Canada, taking into consideration price and quality. The unfortunate feature from a Canadian standpoint is that even after adding the tariff, some of the American goods we purchase are cheaper than the Canadian and more serviceable.
Mr. Guthrie's statement that the western farmer organizations are controlled by Americans and imbued with American sympathies and ideals is hardly worth referring to, but I may
say that of the twelve directors of the United Grain Growers, Ltd., whose purchases of machinery Mr. Guthrie refers to, ten are British or Canadian born, and two American.
I had hoped that the day of the cheap appeal to racial prejudice by party politicians of the old type was past, but apparently it is not; so I might add that we have here in the West some American born citizens, than whom we have no better Canadians in Canada to-day.
To make the matter clearer still, I will now give the names and the places of birth of the twelve directors who guide the affairs of the United Grain Growers' Limited: Hon. T. A. Crerar, President, born in the Province of Ontario; Cecil Rice-Jones, born in England (Wales); John Kennedy, known to many men in Ontario, and born in that province; Roderick McKenzie, born in the province of Ontario; F. Collyer, born in England; John Morrison, born in Ontario; R. A. Parker, born in Winnipeg, Manitoba; J. J. McLellan born in Nova Scotia; Mr. Wingate, born in the United States; Mr. Austin, born in the United States; and myself, born in the Orkney Islands, Scotland.
Now if the Minister of Militia, who wears the gold lace and the ribbon and the sparkling sword, thinks for one minute that these two Yankees, and I say that with all respect can twist the other ten men around their fingers he has another guess coming.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Especially the Scotchman.


John Flaws Reid: My good friend the Minister of Militia makes three distinct charges: first, that the Farmers' party in the West was started by American settlers, and that the organizers of the western Farmers are American sympathizers; second, that all the goods branded "U.G.G." in the catalogue are made in the United States and that not a Canadian-made article is catalogued. That is absolutely incorrect. Thirdly, he charges that the Farmers' party in Western Canada is a menance to the present Government.


Michael Clark: That is true.


John Flaws Reid: Yes, I have not much to say against that, because my hon. friend the Minister of the Militia says that we are the party which the Government must fear. We will let that charge pass, but he goes on to say that the Farmers party in Wectern Canada is a menace to the future of Canada, and that all this is brought about by American settlers who are American sympathizers. If that is the case, it is time for us to stop encouraging immigration from the

United States, and we should bring home our immigration officers over there. You cannot ride both horses. They are either good or bad, and I want to tell this House, as Mr. Rice-Jones said in his interview in the press, that we have American settlers in Western Canada who are just as good citizens as myself or the Minister of Militia. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, it is time that this cheap talk was stopped.


Mr. MAHARG:: Just clap-trap.


John Flaws Reid: And cheap clap-trap
at that. What is behind it all? It is an endeavour to drive a wedge of distrust between the East and the West. The aim is to set the East and the West against each other and, if possible, to breed suspicion in the minds of our eastern people against the western Progressives. I want to tell the House that this Progressive movement is not confined to Western Canada; it is spreading all over the Dominion, and neither the Minister of Militia nor this Government, nor all this House, can stop that movement. It is a popular movement. It is the movement of the great common peo'ple, and it is going to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore that a Minister of the Crown, one of Canada's foremost statesmen, an adviser to the King's representative in Canada, the Governor General, and therefore an adviser to His Majesty King George, should stoop to such low political tactics for the purpose of causing distrust between the East and the West. It is beneath the dignity of the hon. gentleman's position. It is beneath the dignity of any member of this House.
Mr. HOWARD H. HALLADAY (Bow River) : I want to add my congratulations to what has been said regarding the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), and the mover and seconder of the Address. We have before us an amendment which will in a short time precipitate a division in the House. At that time every hon. member who votes on the amendment must have some good and sufficient reason for the way in which he votes. I propose to vote against that amendment, and my first reason is that I have no confidence in the party from which it emanates.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That will not worry us much.


Mr. HALLADAY:: Two reasons have been given why we should support the amendment; one is that the Government has no mandate, and the other, that there is a demand in this country for an election.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Howard Hadden Halladay: I endorse the hon. gentleman's "hear, hear." There is a demand for an election, Mr. Speaker, but it comes from your left and from the people who supported the Opposition in the last election. I believe that the men who are crying for an election in this country today, if they had had the nerve, would have made the same cry on the 18th day of December, 1917. Why? I had a resolution sent to me two months after the first session of this Parliament by an organization which strenuously opposed me in that election and which asked for my resignation, the reason given being that I had supported a certain Bill in this House, which Bill, Mr. Speaker, did not at that session and has not at any subsequent session, appeared on the Order Paper.
It is simply a cry of the ins and the outs; and so far as the question of mandate is concerned, I can only speak for my own constituency. During my campaign in the fall of 1917 I took particular pains to say on every platform on which I appeared that I would support this Government on every war measure. I have done so. I also told them that after the war was over I reserved the right to use my own judgment, and that judgment in this instance is to vote against the amendment.
The same party from which this amendment comes is the party that was in power in 1910 and 1911, when they brought about a snap verdict from the people as a result of which western Canada was robbed of thirteen representatives in this House, and we went along for six years short of representation to that extent. They come to us again to-day clamouring for an election. If they had their way we would be robbed of from thirteen to twenty seats on this occasion. But I want to warn the leader of the semi-official Opposition that the people of western Canada will not gracefully heed this cry. I want to warn him that there are a number of people in Canada who are quite convinced that this Parliament can give us as honest a redistribution as any other Parliament that may follow. This redistribution will not be made by the Cabinet themselves; it will have to come before this House, at which time every hon. member will have something to say.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have been very well advised by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) when he suggests a commission to look into the wheat business of western Canada. We had in the corridors of this House last year for two long months a representative

from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. He flirted with the members of the Opposition, he flirted with the members sitting behind the Government on this side, and he flirted particularly with the members of the semiofficial Opposition. He told us that the United States would practically consume their total crop of last year; he told us that Australia was short from seven to eleven million acres in wheat; he told us that Central Europe would not produce any wheat, and as a consequence if we would allow the wheat to revert hack to the old system of handling we would receive not less than $3 and possibly $5 per bushel. We know what happened; and I think that the Government would be wise, in appointing a commission. But for goodness sake do not appoint a committee from the Winnipeg Grain Exchange.
I believe that one of the finest reports that have been placed on the table of this House was that tabled this week, wherein we are told that the farmers of Canada received a great deal more per bushel for wheat than did the farmers of the United States; and at the same time that the working-men of this country bought flour at a smaller price than the working-men of the United States. That was done through Government handling. I would therefore heartily second the proposal of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) that the Government appoint a committee to investigate the whole wheat condition of Western Canada and see if it is not possible to go back to Government control in the handling of wheat.
We have another industry in Western Canada which is going down hill, and I am afraid that unless something definite is done by this Government in the near future that industry will cease to exist. I refer to the cattle business. We have in Saskatchewan something like 4,000,000 acres, in the province of Alberta about 4,000,000. and in British Columbia, I believe, some
400,000	acres of land leased to cattle raisers. This land is not farm land; it has been surveyed and re-surveyed and the farming land taken out. It is keeping above water to-day on industry which is our second in importance in Western Canada. Our meat has found its way to the best tables of the world; and is in demand in the best of the world's markets. This is probably due to our climatic conditions, but it is no doubt attributable mostly to the food the cattle get. Our prairie grass grows up until the middle of July as a rule and then starts to ripen and
as it stands on the stubble ripened it is really hay. In each blade is found meat similar to that of the oat, and on this the cattle feed and fatten. Now, all that our ranchers ask is that they be given something definite as to what is to be done with these leases. They are to expire in two, three, four and five years, and if the ranchers do not know within a short time what is to be done, they will start to spay their heifers. That will deplete the cattle business.
It has been suggested that these grazing lands be turned over to community grazing. That sounds feasible; but in southern \lberta and Saskatchewan when the grass is eaten off to the first of July it does not grow again, and as in community grazing our cattle do not leave the land, therefore have no crop except in the Spring of the year and no hay at all. Your hay can only be cut once every two years.
What these gentlemen ask is that they should be informed as to what is going to be done and that the information should be definite. It is said that these natural resources may be handed over to the provinces. This may or may not be contemplated. If it is I believe the provinces would prefer to have an industry handed over with those resources, than that they should receive them without that industry.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia) :: Mr. Speaker, I will not detain the House for any great length of time to-night but while the thought is still fresh in my mind I will comment for a moment or two on the speech of the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott). He quoted from an address made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I could not exactly gather the reason for making the quotation because I am sure all of us will agree that the expressions used by the member for Red Deer constitute the best compliment that could be paid to him; they show his absolute consistency from the date of the delivery of the speech in question up to the present time.
The statement that the Premier of Ontario had not given any preferential legislation to agriculture is a compliment to Hon. Mr. Drury also. Does it not demonstrate beyond all question that the members of our party, put our professions into practice when such evidence as this of adherence to principle comes from those diametrically opposed to us? My hon. friend from South Waterloo expressed the opinion that there was no demand in the country that the Government should dissolve Far-

liament and hold an election. It is a well known adage Sir, that a man will frequently know more about the immediate business of his neighbour than he does about his own. I wonder whether the hon. member for South Waterloo has received information from a point very close to his own constituency? To my mind circumstances point to the fact that he has. I understand the hon. gentleman was elected by a majority of some two thousand, not counting the soldiers' vote. I am also advised that in the provincial elections in Ontario a Liberal and Labour member was returned for that constituency by a majority of some four thousand. Does my hon. friend interpret that turnover as an expression of feeling favourable to the retention in office of the present administration? If he does my hon. friend must have an imagination of an unusual kind. I cannot understand why he should express such sentiments as uttered here to-night in view of the feeling with respect to the Government which seems to prevail in his own riding.
I have heard it said many times that when the first dozen speeches upon any subject have been made in this Chamber * everything has been said that it is possible to say. That, doubtless, is frequently true but we must admit that there are exceptions. The fine address that was given by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Cre-rar) yesterday, for example, was evidence to the contrary. It was a compliment to the hon. gentleman himself, it was a compliment to our party, it was a compliment to the House, that while the hon. gentleman occupied the floor there was a larger attendance of members than has been customary during the present session and the public galleries were crowded. Throughout his speech the hon. gentleman held the interest of his entire audience until he resumed his seat. That I regard as a well merited compliment. I interpret it to mean that the people, even our legislators, are very anxious to hear the pronouncements of our policy as they are delivered from time to time, and as they were very specifically delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Marquette.
I wish to associate myself with those who have extended their congratulations to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) upon his elevation to his present high office.
I cannot but admire the man who through sheer business ability and devotion to work and to a conception of what he believes to be right has exacted recognition from his party to the extent that they have protMr. Gould.]
claimed him to be their leader and have advanced him to his present exalted state. His promotion is undoubtedly a compliment to the right hon. gentleman and I recognize that he is to-day a mighty man, but I believe that he will be a still mightier man when he sits in the cold shades of Opposition and feels the pulse of the people -the people who are asking for things from him although their appeals seem to fall upon deaf ears. In saying that I am not uttering anything derogatory to the Prime Minister. I am only expressing my honest desire that he may become a mightier man in the future than he is at the present time.
I also wish to compliment those members of the Government who have been raised to Cabinet rank since last session. I do not suppose there is any member in the House but is pleased when some of our fellows are advanced to higher rank. If newspaper reports are to be believed one of these gentlemen, the hon. Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wigmore) speaking in the city of St. John during the contest which followed his entrance to the Cabinet, said that the city of St. John came first in his estimation, the province of New Brunswick next, and Canada third. I do not agree with such a sentiment as that, and when we bear in mind the laudatory flag-waving speeches which are indulged in by hon. gentlemen opposite one would imagine that they ought to have a stronger sense of national pride and a broader outlook on public affairs. That is my idea at any rate.. We all profess to be speaking for Canada, and when a man's interests become narrowed down as they seem to have become with my hon. friend, that is not big Canadianism. If we are ever going to become Canadians in the best and broadest sense of the term we have to get rid of sectionalism and not strive to advance merely local interests. The welfare of the country as a whole should be kept in mind and advanced, even if it sometimes involves the sacrifice of local and petty interests.
When the name of the mover of the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne was announced we all realized that the House would be favoured with a great literary treat, and the anticipation was realized. I must also say that the seconder performed his duty well. He really merited the compliments which were paid to him, and yet perhaps he may pardon me for addressing to him a word of caution. I advise the hon. gentleman not to pay too much attention to the compliments he has received. It does not necessarily follow

that because he was given the honour of seconding the Address, a portfolio is lying around loose awaiting his acceptance.
Then I wish to refer to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey), who spoke of extending the hand of good fellowship across the Rocky Mountains and grasping the hands of the Prairie farmers at the same time asserting that the farmers of the province by the western sea would not have anything to do with the policies o'f the people of the western plains, as enunicated in the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, but that they wished to retain their thirty cents a box or ninety cents a barrel duty on their apples. Is that big Canadianism? I would say that while the British Columbia farmer has the one hand engaged he might extend the other across to the Atlantic seaboard to grasp the hand of the hon. Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue (Mr. Wig-more). If his interpretation of things political is what we are to understand as being things national, I am here to-night to say that the conception of the people who advocate and stand upon the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture is bigger and broader and greater than the sentiments expressed by this hon. gentleman.
In the speech from the Throne, likewise in the many addresses that were delivered throughout the length and breadth of our land by the right hon. the Prime Minister, the gauntlet was thrown down in regard to the tariff policy as proposed to be carried out by his party. In that respect, Sir, we know exactly where they are. Likewise by the admission of hon. gentlemen on the Government side who have spoken repeatedly and have directed their remarks to our Progressive group here, they confess that they know also where we stand. Therefore, the issue is clearly defined as between the Government and our party. We accept battle upon that issue as laid down by our Prime Minister in his addresses and also in the speech from the Throne. We will and do accept battle upon these terms, let it come sooner or later, and I honestly believe that the sentiment of the people who are governed by our laws will respond to the appeal, the newer and stronger appeal, that is being made at this time on the great national issue on the tariff.
We believe, Sir, that our cause is just, and we believe that to-day the people arc-studying economic questions more and more. The question of economics has been very pertinent to our people during the war 22
period. The people are becoming enlightened, and they really believe that more enlightenment should be given to them by those who, they believe, are the beneficiaries of the system. Uijtil evidence has been produced and the people are satisfied that they have not been mulcted in the deal, they will not be content, and upon every occasion they will vote to have the tariff further reduced.
The Commission that' was appointed by the Government travelled throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion taking evidence regarding the tariff. I did not have an opportunity of appearing before that Commission, but I watched very closely the newspaper reports of the evidence that was adduced, and I came to the conclusion long ago that if the desire was to procure real evidence and pass final judgment on that evidence, instead of being a Government Commission, it should have been a Commission appointed from Parliament. We have three groups in this House, and it was easy and would have struck a reassuring note in the minds of the people had a parliamentary committee been appointed to take that evidence rather than a committee composed entirely of Government members.
Why, Sir, it seems to me that the case is prejudiced before it starts by the Government, which, while the Tariff Commission is taking evidence, nails its protection flag to the masthead. The people of Canada cannot have faith that the findings of that Commission are going to be wholly in their favour. I do not quote this as a positive fact, but I was told that even while the Commission was taking evidence the sittings were suspended to enable one of the commissioners to proceed to East Elgin, and there proclaim the beauties of protection. To me, Mr. Speaker, such action does prejudice the case, and I am not prepared to admit that new evidence was necessary along the lines that the Commission sought. It does appear to me that the evidence should have been started lower down than that. I believe that our Canadian interests that claim a continuance of protection should show just how much it is costing the people for that protection. It seems to me that if there are a million dollars of watered stock in our companies we should not be mulcted in tariff duties to pay dividends on it. It would be easy for the Commission to ascertain how matters stand and to find out which of our companies, if any, are worthy of protec-



tion. Until that evidence is produced I do not think the people need expect or can believe that such evidence as was taken by the Commission last fall will be satisfactory, nov will it end in remedying the evils which we believe to exist now.
In the amendment tendered by the hon. the leader of the Opposition, and in all the addresses that have been made thereon, the constitutional aspect of the case has been presented by the various speakers. It is not my wish or intention to delay the House to-night with any feeble endeavour to enter into the constitutional question, but I have in my own mind some reasons which I will adduce in a few minutes as to why this Government should appeal to the electorate. There is, Sir, not much to be said in my estimation about the want of confidence sentiment. There is the human element, and it seems to me that that element has entered into the appeal which has emanated from the official Liberal party. There is a question as to whether if they were in power, for instance, they would do any better. Human nature is very much the same wherever you find it, and I do not think our people are much concerned as ' to whether the Government as constituted to-day is less capable perhaps than would be the hon. members who sit on this side of the House if they were in power. I can quite belive, Sir, that precedents could be cited to prove that likewise those who call themselves Liberals have sometimes in the past been in a similar position and acted very much the same as the hon. members who occupy the treasury benches to-day. So I say that any vote of want of confidence in the Government does not enter very largely into the decision which I have arrived at as to why the Government should go to the country.
There is, however, particularly in our western country, Sir, a feeling that faith has been broken with the people. I know for a fact, speaking as an individual who has taken more or less interest in political affairs for a number of years in our western country and who attended the Liberal conventions and took a more or less active part in the nominations, that when the appeals were being made all over the country to "back Unionists, I, as an Englishman born in the Mother Country, feeling that English blood animating my veins, and knowing that my Mother Country was in danger, threw up my political party allegiance and gave all the support I was capable of to the cause of Unionism to win the war, 
as we all thought. But I believed, along with millions of other electors, that after the war was won there would be an immediate appeal to the country upon the war record of the Government. We feei, Sir, that that sentiment is abroad in the land, and that the people are waiting for the opportunity, whether it comes sooner or later, to charge this Government with what they believe at least to be broken faith. The people really believe that faith was broken with them.
If I may use a Scriptural phrase, I would say that false prophets have arisen who prophesy that there will be a fusion of this party and the Liberal party, and the assertion has been made that the probability is not denied. Standing here in my place to-night, Sir, I will make at least a feeble effort to explain to the House why such fusion has not been and is not being-considered, and why I do not anticipate that it will be considered. Incidentally I hope that hon. gentlemen will appreciate the effort I am putting forth to offer a little enlightenment upon this question, and that they will in the future treat the question as if they had received an answer.
In 1916 the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture was drafted, not with the object of forming a new political party, but for presentation to the Government of the day as a platform the working-out of which would be in the best interests of the people of Canada as a whole. That is why my platform was framed. In August, 1919, when our Liberal friends met in Ottawa and commenced to build the Liberal platform, our Canadian Council of Agriculture forwarded to the men in Ottawa at that time a memorandum along the lines of the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. It is quite evident when you compare the two platforms, that the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture was the guiding principle that actuated the minds of those men who met in convention in August, 1919, with the object of building a platform for the Liberal party. I do not need to reiterate the statement that it has been frequently alleged in the House, and that speakers of the Liberal party have proclaimed throughout many parts of this country that the two platforms are identical. I know the statement has been made, though I am not going to say it has been made with any real authority from the Liberal party. So far as our group is concerned, and so far as the Canadian Council of Agriculture is concerned, it has never been recognized as having been made with authority. However,

it is my purpose to cite a few special instances to-night in order to show that a difference does exist between the two platforms.
The memorandum, then, forwarded by the Canadian Council of Agriculture to those who gathered in the City of Ottawa at that time pointed out why this platform upon which we stood should he a national platform and should be adopted by them, as it had been refused by the party then in power. I might say here that the "Farmers' platform" about which some people talk so glibly is a misnomer; it is the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, a platform that has been recognized by great statesmen of this country as the best ever offered the people. That, of course, is a tribute to those who framed the platform-and the platform itself is the result of thousands of meetings that had been held all over the country, during the course of which the facts and conditions had been boiled down in an effort to find the kernels, the real essence of things as essential to the welfare and prosperity of the people of Canada.
We find, then, that the platform which I advocate and stand upon asked for free wheat, wheat flour, agricultural implements, fertilizers, cement, illuminating, fuel and lubricating oils. In that respect the Liberals followed absolutely and entirely the suggestion of our memorandum and our platform. They added, fishermen's equipment, such as nets, etc. So far the platforms are quite identical. The sentiment seemed to pervade that convention that they had satisfied the full demands of agriculture and that from that time on they could proceed to satisfy all the other interests of the Dominion of Canada. Let us see, for a moment, how they proceeded to do it. The platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture asked for free soft, coal for the industries of Canada, for the home of the artisan and the hearth of the workingman and the home of the man upon the prairie. The Liberals did not ask for that. I have myself, Sir, not once but winter after winter, driven thirty-seven miles in one direction to get a load of wood and to bring it back-two long days in the cold, biting frost, trying to get wood with which to keep my house warm. We in the West know the value of coal, and know how to appreciate wood when we have it. But I maintain that the Liberal party could not have done a better service, politically or economically, than to have included in their platform free soft coal, in the interests, as I say, of the industries of Canada, of the
artisan, of the workingman, of the man on the prairie who is miles and miles from anything in the shape of fuel.
We asked for free lumber so that the workingman could build his home, and for the benefit of the artisan, again, and the man on the prairie. The Liberals in their platform, asked only for free rough and partly dressed lumber.. There is a discrepancy there.


Mr. HENDERS:: It is already free.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am dealing with the
principles of the platform laid down in the Liberal Convention in August, 1919. Our platform called for free food; the Liberal platform asked that the principal articles of food be made duty free. We asked for an immediate all-round reduction in the tariff; the Liberals asked that the duties on clothing and footwear be cut in two. There is another vast and very vital difference, because these things deal directly with the necessa ries of life in the cold western winter climate of the West. That is one of the principles that guided those who built the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture-the desirability of making the necessities of life, the needs of the people-in this country, as inexpensive and as free from duty as possible.
I am sure that all men will recognize that that was a good, guiding national principle that actuated those people when they framed that platform. As I studied and compared these platforms, it seemed to me that after the needs of agriculture had apparently been satisfied by those who com-prised the convention, possibly some of-our Liberal friends who live in the peninsula down by the Atlantic ocean, where large coal deposits are to be found, intervened and perhaps persuaded the convention that free coal was not necessary nor needful. I heard an hon. gentleman once make this remark, which illustrates the point very well:	" They were quite satisfied to sacrifice their wives' relations, but not any of their own." The people of Western Canada in particular, after studying and comparing these platforms, do not believe the claim that the plat-10 p.m. forms are the same. I tell the House to-night that there is in the West no sentiment looking towards fusion.- To the Government I would say: the statements I am giving you here tonight I want you to accept, because the country has already accepted them. Do not be alarmed any longer concerning that idea. I do not wish to labour the point, any further.

At the outset of my remarks I mentioned other things in regard to which the people were going to be concerned whether the Government should go to the country or not. When this House prorogued last July enabling legislation had been passed whereby the Wheat Board would again function. Shortly after I reached my home, I was dumfounded to read in the newspapers that the Government had taken away those powers, and that the Wheat Board had been disbanded. One of the reasons why we in our group voted unanimously for the re-establishment of the Wheat Board was that we recognized that purchasing agencies were going to continue in the markets of the old country and on the continent of Europe and we believed that if organized purchasing agencies existed we should have organized selling agencies to meet that condition. That :is, however, not so much the point.
In our organizations in the West we passed thousands and thousands of resolutions, of which I believe hundreds were forwarded to Ottawa. The press was filled with reasons why we wanted the re-establishment of our Wheat Board, and to each and every request the Government turned a deaf ear. 'Nothing apparently could be done for the plain people and we went forth selling our grain on street or on track and a difference of twenty to twenty-six cents a bushel existed all through the early part of the fall in our country between street and track prices, on account of the difference between the unit under which we are selling now and the one under which we have been accustomed to sell, under the Wheat Board. The country holds this Government responsible for the fact that they did not hearken to the pleadings of the people whose whole and sole support was wheat, who watched the markets, decline, decline, decline, with all the human vultures that could possibly gather, picking upon the product of the Western farmer, while not one finger was raised by the Government in support of the farmer in his pleadings and requests.


Mr. MYERS:: Will the hon. member
kindly inform the House if the leader of the Progressive party was in favour of [DOT]the Wheat Board?


Oliver Robert Gould: If the hon. gentleman will look up the vote of last year, he will find that we all voted in favour of it.


Edward Thomas Wordon Myers: There was no vote.


Mr. COWAN:: Is it not true that at the election in which the hon. member was * 
elected, he and every part of his constituency were opposed to the existence of a Wheat Board: that he fought it from beginning to end and that he was elected as an opponent of the Wheat Board?


Oliver Robert Gould: That is another bugaboo.
I do not think the hon. gentleman can find in Assiniboia any sentiment whatever in that direction. I will give to the House this evidence-


Walter Davy Cowan: That is not the point
at all. The point is that my hon. friend was elected straight on that platform and nothing else.


John Archibald Maharg: Thei'e was no Whear
Board in existence then.


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes there was.


John Archibald Maharg: Not on your life.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. gentleman is
mixed as to his facts. I might tell the House that not on any of the many platforms on which I stood during my whole election was the Wheat Board mentioned. I say that to-night as an hon. member of this House.


Mr. SHAW:: Did my hon. friend not
censure the Wheat Board in the first speech which he made in this House?


Oliver Robert Gould: I will say to the hon. gentleman that he can call that a censure of the Wheat Board, but an hon. gentleman who immediately followed me said that I was very impartial in my remarks regarding the Wheat Board. I think if my hon. friend will look up the address that immediately followed mine, he will find that to be the case. His own side has made that statement.
Referring further to the Wheat Board, we wanted the Wheat Board in the West and to show that we did want it and that I supported the Wheat Board in every place where I had an opportunity to do so, not because I knew any more than hon. gentlemen opposite, but because I believed it would work out all right, I have this evidence to offer and I could give the names of many men in the West who did not have the same faith in the Wheat Board and who applied to me time and time again, offering me their participation certificates at three, five, seven cents and more per bushel. In my office upstairs I could show hon. gentlemen carbon copies of letters that I sent back to men who wrote me asking me what participation certificates were worth. I gave them my belief that they, should be worth at least twenty-five cents a bushel.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Did the hon. gentleman in the speech which he made last session not tell the House that he threw his participation certificates in the waste paper basket? I certainly understood so.


Oliver Robert Gould: I did not. . I suppose copies of Hansard of that session are available, and the evidence can be produced.


Walter Davy Cowan: We will get the evidence. We are not through with the hon. gentleman yet.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am too good a business man to do such a foolish thing, and I should like the hon. gentleman to have that conception of me also, because while I did see in the West one man who might have applied his participation certificates in that way none that I possessed were used in that manner. In fact I collected my full forty-eight cents a bushel on every one of them. I was very pleased and I was very surprised because I did not ask


Walter Davy Cowan: How did the hon. member have those participation certificates if the Wheat Board was not in existence at the last election?	.


Michael Clark: He got them at a later date.


Walter Davy Cowan: Oh, no.


Oliver Robert Gould: That is beside the point.


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon. gentleman is all tied up.


Oliver Robert Gould: I am producing evidence
to prove that I was consistent; that I told those people, a good many of whom were Conservatives, in my electoral district, who did not believe the participation certificates would be any good, that they would be worth something-I was unable to say what. As I got more information, I kept every one of my own. That shows the faith which I had in them. I always advised those Conservatives who wanted to get rid of their certificates that they would be worth something if they kept them long enough. The point I want to bring out is this:	We
wanted the Wheat Board last year, and we appealed to the Government to give us the Wheat Board. Enabling legislation had been passed, but no attention was paid to our cry.	.
Then in connection with freight rates, particularly as they effect the West, and this is the question that was raised the other day by tbe hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), the three men comprising the Railway Commission seemed to have the power to bring an indictment
against the country that was more important at that time than our whole tariff inquiry. Inside of a week they imposed upon this country a heavy burden, and it rested more heavily on Western Canada than on any other part, because at that time thousands and thousands of tons of freight, representing our export of wheat were moving along the railways. We said that it was inequitable and unfair to us.
The question was raised in our associations and we passed resolutions, and pleaded with the powers that be to suspend the order, but no attention was paid to our appeals. The result was that the West paid approximately a million dollars a day extra in freight rates because of that order.
The people of the West were fined that amount, and our Government stood by and let the Railway Commission take this money from us. No excuse can be offered by the Government for allowing the commission to issue that order. It is no use for the Government to say that the commission has vested powers and rights, because I remember when the Board of Commerce proposed to place an embargo on sugar they were quickly advised by the Government that the embargo must not go into effect and sugar was allowed to come down in price.
I repeat, these are particularly western questions, and the West will call this Government to account because of these things.
The hon. member for Centre Vancouver stated the absolute truth very distinctly the other day when he said that an injustice was done to the West in that respect, and I say, Sir, that the West, not in any spirit of revenge, but in the belief that justice should prevail in this country, will record its dissatisfaction with the apathy shown by the Government on these two questions so vitally affecting that part of the country.
I believe, Sir, that the Advisory Council of Scientific Research can do a greater work possibly than it is doing at the present time. It is a well-known fact that on our western plains we have been afflicted ' with rust for a very long time, and it occurred to me that perhaps the Scientific Research Council, if money were voted for the purpose, could bend their energies towards finding a remedy for this rust evil, because all who come from the West know that in areas where rust prevails, inside of a week crop can be cut down from a twenty-bushel to a ten-bushel crop by this disease. That is a national loss, and I would be most willing to support a vote of money to the council for the purpose of


investigating this disease and trying to find a remedy for it.
I should like to say a few words with regard to the address which was made in the House the other day by the hon. member for St. Hyancinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier). He said he could not join the Progressive group, because he feared there was communism in our platform. There might be some excuse for the hon. gentleman arriving at that conclusion if he had not studied our platform, but if he had studied it he could not possibly have arrived at that conclusion. He speaks of there being 63 per cent of alien population in the West. Why should he charge the West with that? Did he not support a Government that for fifteen years was largely responsible for the influx of immigration to the West? Why did he wait till this hour to proclaim this fact? I believe, Sir, that the people of Canada are big enough to assimilate the immigrants that have come in there, and I think hon. gentlemen on the Government side of the House will bear me out in saying that Western Canada does not feel that there is any evil in having these alien immigrants within her borders. On the contrary, we feel we are making good citizens out of them. Even if it were true that we had 63 per cent of alien population, we of the West did formulate and build the platform of the Canadian Council of Agriculture, which constituted, the guiding principle of the great Liberal party at their convention here in August, 1919.


Mr. NORMAN LANG (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, before discussing any of the more important matters, 1 should like to refer briefly to the amendment that is now before the House. I can well remember that on many oocasions when legislation has been brought down in the House, the people of Canada have disapproved. For instance, at the time the Drug Act was being amended, I recall, although it seemed a minor matter compared with a general election, how the telegraph boys were going about here with armfuls of telegrams. The same thing has happened on many occasions, both when the House was in session and during the recess. When the price of sugar was liable to be affected, I believe the Government was bombarded with telegrams from every nook and corner of Canada, although I would think a few cents a pound on sugar a minor affair compared with a general election in this country.
IMr. Gould.]
We know that the people of this country express their views in this way, but although we have been discussing this amendment for nearly two weeks, I have failed to see any evidence that the supporters of this amendment have received' much encouragement from outside the House of Commons. As a matter of fact,
I think the desire for a general election at this time is pretty well confined to one side of the House. I believe the people of this country are not very much concerned about it, or they would have availed themselves of the opportunity to advise us as to their views. I would like to assure the right hon. Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, and all the other whips, that so far as I am concerned they need not worry about me for I shall try and be in my seat when the bell rings, ready to vote against the amendment that is now before the House.
I want to mention briefly a few things that, very properly, I think, interest the people of the West particularly. I think the members from the eastern part of Canada are quite capable of looking after the interests of the East, so I shall try and confine my remarks to matters that affect our western country, and affect it very, very seriously. In the first place, I want to endorse most strongly the remarks of my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) in regard to the necessity of the Government's appointing a commission to thoroughly investigate the wheat trade.
I think that it is the most important question that has been discussed in this House this session. It has been a subject of complaint in the West to my knowledge for over thirty years. I think the investigation has been delayed too long now and that the Government should take means at once to enquire thoroughly into the entire grain trade, from the time the grain leaves the farmers' wagon until it arrives on the markets of Europe or elsewhere.
I do not wish to convey the idea that I am a pessimist. I have great faith in the West, and I do not think that there is a place in the world where development has been so rapid as it has been in the province of Saskatchewan during the last fifteen years. In the summer of 1903 you could travel from Saskatoon to Yorkton and see nothing but foxes and antelopes, but now the country is entirely settled and the virgin prairie has been converted into productive farms. Thousands upon thousands of farmers have done well out there. They arrived in this country with

very little capital and now have comfortable homes, very good buildings, farms well cultivated and fenced; but they would have been much better off if the conditions for the marketing of their grain had been such as to give them a fair return for their product.
As in every other country in the world, it is not all sunshine on the prairies. Some districts have wonderful luck for several years, and then comes a series of bad years. In a great many districts in Saskatchewan we have bad luck now for five years. I can briefly describe what actually occurred. In 1915 we had a bumper crop in all the three provinces. In 1916, however, we had a tremendous amount of hail. Indeed, the hail storms were so severe that the Municipal Hail Insurance Company were only able to pay 40 cents on the dollar; the balance has never been paid and never will be. The following year was somewhat better but there wras not a heavy crop. In 1918 we had an unusually severe frost on the morning of July 24th, and it destroyed the grain in patches which meant that the whole field had to be cut, stooked and threshed at a very great expense and many farmers operated at a loss that year. In 1919 the season was very dry, with the result that there was crop failure in a great many places. Last year there was a similar condition in a number of districts. Therefore, I think it is very necessary that the Government should do everything they possibly can to improve marketing conditions.
Possibly some hon. gentlemen will think that a great deal of this trouble has been due to poor farming. I will admit that there is still room for improvement, and there always will be; but I must say that there has been a wonderful advance in the last few years. The land has been much better cultivated; in fact, some of the farmers have over-cultivated, with the result that the soil has drifted badly. However, considering the shortage of suitable help and all the adverse conditions, the people have struggled manfully to meet their obligations and to develop the country.
But the prospects are not good at present. Spring is rapidly approaching, and what is the outlook? We are told by the implement dealers that prices are going to be higher. We do not know what wages are going to be, and with the exchange situation as it is, we do not feel that there
is very much prospect of a market for our 1921 crop in Europe. With the German mark at about one cent and a half, only the millionaire classes can possibly buy grain from us. The United States farmers complain that their markets are flooded. Now, I always try to look on the bright side of things, and while I do not desire to be charged with being pessimistic, really at present conditions are not very good, and I think that \the Government should get busy at once and try to improve the situation.
There is no room for gamblers between [DOT]the producer and the consumer. We have far too many middlemen in all lines of trade as well as the gamblers on the Winnipeg Grain Exchange. We all know that the Wheat Board was not appreciated at the start. However, every one realizes now that it was the best method of disposing of our surplus wheat, and I was very glad to hear the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) corroborate my statement that the Wheat Board is very much appreciated at the present time. Indeed, it has been appreciated ever since it became known that it was going to he a success. I feel that the best solution of the difficulty is to re-appoint the Wheat Board on a slightly different basis. The organized farmers are trying to decide on a wheat pool. I do not want to discourage them in any way, but I doubt if any scheme could be a succes that was not endorsed by the Federal Government and the banks. If a wheat pool is the best scheme, let us all get behind it; but if it is not workable, then I should like the Canadian Council of Agriculture and the organized farmers to announce that they are not able to go ahead with it, so that we might have time to formulate some other plan to take care of the 1921 crop. I have had very little news recently regarding what has been done by the organized farmers and the Canadian Council of Agriculture, but I noticed a paragraph touching this matter in the press this morning which is of some interest, and I would like to read it to the House:
Delay Obtaining Wheat Pool Charter.
Winnipeg, Man., Feb. 24.-No application will be made this session to the Manitoba legislature for a charter in connection with the formation of the Wheat Pool Association, according to George Langley, minister of municipal affairs for Saskatchewan, who is in the city to-day.
In explaining the delay, Mr. Langley said the formation of such an association, to which thousands of farmers belong, constituted an undertaking of gigantic magnitude meriting

mature consideration. Another matter which would have to be dealt with at some length was the question of determining the status of farmers in the association, who, though possessing no financial interest in the organization were entitled to consideration in its direction.
I must say that this does not look very promising. For my part I would like to see the Government appoint what I would call an "Improved Wheat Board" on a voluntary basis. We all object to compulsory legislation but I think if the Wheat Board were re-appointed and authorized to handle not only wheat but oats, barley and flax as well, and if it were optional whether a man shipped his wheat through the, Board, got his advance and waited for the balance, or sold it to the elevators, it would be to the advantage of the farmer. It is not easy at the present time for the Government to do anything until the organized farmers agree on what they are going to do. As I have already said I do not want to do anything myself to discourage them. If their plan appears to be the best, let us all get behind them. If it is not, then we want the Government to take immediate action, in order to see what can be done in regard to the 1921 crop.
Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence in the West. The West is all right. The people of the West are all right. What is needed is a better understanding between the East and the West. You in the East need us as much as we need you. I blame the newspapers a great deal for the mistaken impressions existing, caused by the misleading reports published every day. A great many eastern people have an idea that western people spend the summer riding about in automobiles and spend the winter in California, and many western people imagine that the Federal Government and eastern people are not at all concerned as to whether they sink or swim. If anything can be done to improve conditions for any class of people in Canada it is our duty to do it. If nothing can be done, the facts should be made known. Most of our people are reasonable and will be perfectly satisfied if this course is adopted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I should like to mention, briefly, one or two other matters which affect my constituency as well as other parts of the prairie. We realize more and more, as the years go by, the necessity of raising more stock and the importance of good stock, but at present a large proportion of the cattle thrown on the market are in poor condition. This is partly due to the fact that the farmers have not had suffifMr. Lang.]
cient experience in stall feeding steers before the stock is marketed. Very often they are sold for a trifle simply because it is imperative that the owner should get a few dollars and the manager of the local bank'refuses to lend him any money. I do not know if removing the embargo in England would help matters or not. I would certainly like to see the embargo removed, but I have more faith in refrigerator cars and ships than I have in shipping live cattle. If the steers are properly finished on grain and roots before they are slaughtered in Canada the beef will be in first class condition when it arrives on the market in London or Paris. Prices are low at present, but raising good beef and pork is going to be profitable in the future.
I would also like to mention the fact that we will need extra help in harvest, and I think we should encourage people to put in their winter supply of coal in summer. In that way we might get a great many of the miners to help with the harvest. This would also increase the number of cars available for wheat. We have the same experience each year; there is a great rush to haul coal, lumber and everything else just when the cars are needed for wheat, with the result that many of the farmers are forced to be on the road hauling wheat when it is not fit for a dog to be out.
Just while I am on this subject I wish to address a word to my friend the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. J. D. Reid). I do not want to say anything unkind, because I realize that both he and the contractors have had difficulty in getting any construction work done during the last few years. Nevertheless, I want to remind him that we have some short pieces of line the construction of which has been dragging for the last fifteen years, and which must be completed this year. I think it would do a lot of good if the Minister would come out to Saskatchewan with me and make one trip in winter on a load of wheat, from Kelving-ton to Wadena. He would then realize that such a trip is not only hard on the men but hard on the horses as well. I certainly hope the Minister will make a desperate effort this year to complete some of these branch lines. If we cannot secure men in Canada to do this work, we will have to import a few ship loads of labourers from China, or some other country.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must again point out to the Government the absolute necessity of doing everything possible to improve marketing conditions in both grain and stock. What we want is some action. With us actions speak louder than words, and if the Government get busy and prove that they are anxious and willing to help us, they will find that thev have more friends out on the piai-ries than they think, especially if they carry on and maintain a stable Government until after the census has been taken and the redistribution Bill, which will entitle the West to about twenty more members, has been passed,


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: Mr. Speaker, if I do not take the same time in congratulating the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) upon his accession to office at so early a period in life as other speakers have, I trust he will not consider it any reflection upon him. I hope he will permit me to say that the remarks that have been made with respect to him by gentlemen of the group angularly opposite, as he calls it, are vdry heartily reciprocated by me. We are very pleased indeed that the right hon. gentleman has scored such a success in public life, and we wish him a happy future whether it be as leader of the Government or leader of the Opposition. It is customary in this debate to refer to various subjects, and I trust I may be excused if I make reference very briefly to a few matters that have not been dwelt upon by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me.
I want to" refer first to a subject that has been frequently discussed in this House in the past and which will undoubtedly be frequently discussed in the future until it is settled in a different way from what we have attempted so far; that is the question of our obligations to our citizen soldiers who served so well in the great war. No other body of Canadians at any time in our history have done so much to bring honour to Canada or to raise her name so high in the esteem of the world. We paid our privates in the trenches considerably less than we paid inexperienced labourers at home. This cannot be allowed to be the final disposition of this matter, and it will never be settled until it is settled in the right way.
In discussing this matter with one man and another, I find that the financial position of the country is always raised as an
objection to doing anything further for our returned men. Well, I am glad to say that Canada is able to pay her debts, and there is at least a moral debt due in this case, and we will have to settle it some time or other, the sooner the better. I noticed that when hon. members asked for an increased indemnity last session the financial situation of the country was not allowed to stand in the way of granting their request. I think there was an obligation on the country to increase the sessional indemnity, but I think there was and still is a greater moral obligation to give something further to our returned men than they have yet received.
Fortunately they have a strong and active organization in the Great War Veterans Association of Canada. The sanity and reasonableness of our returned men generally-I do not speak of a few exceptional cases-is well exemplified by the style of men that they send here as central officers.
I believe that some settlement inust be made with our returned men that will be satisfactory to the Great War Veterans' Association, and it seems to me that in any settlement the association should be consulted, and an arrangement concluded which will be final and satisfactory.
I am sorry that my hon. friend from East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) when he speaks on this question, seems to think it necessary to make some very offensive remarks to those hon. members who looked on the question of conscription in a different way from what he and I x'egarded it.
I had as much interest as my hon. friend from East Algoma in the conscription issue and I sacrificed quite as much, I thought as he did in my desire to see that the men at the front were supported to the utmost. But I cannot forget that many others who took a different view of 'the question were just as conscientious and just as much interested as I was. For instance, the hon. gentleman who used to represent a constituency in Quebec-I refer to Mr. Power-opposed conscription as strongly as I supported it. But he had three sons fighting in the battle line. I have no right to say that he was not as sincere in his desire to help the men in the trenches as I was, and neither has the hon. member for East Algoma any right to pass such reflections. The sooner we drop that sort of talk the better it will be for the credit and honour of this House and the country at large.
The hon. member dealt generally with another matter which was more particularly discussed by the hon. member for Centre

Vancouver (Mr. Stevens). It seems that some hon. gentlemen deem it their duty to sling all the mud they can at the United Grain Growers, Limited; but if he and other hon. gentlemen would stop to consider what is influencing certain people to urge hon. members to make these ridiculous charges they would soon drop them unless they were the paid agents of the big interests which have been interfered with by that organization.


Matthew Robert Blake: I would like to know what charges the hon. member refers to.


Levi Thomson: We are hearing them
all the time, and my hon. friend cannot fail to have heard them. I refer to the slurs that have been cast at the United Grain Growers, Limited. Now, what is the offence of that organization? Its offence is that it stepped in when conditions were all wrong, when we believed that we were being robbed on all sides in connection with the marketing of our grain. That organization' stepped in and handled the grain business so well and so economically that to-day it has secured a very large poi'-tion of the business. No new organization can get the business of the country unless it does that business better than the older organizations did. That is the reason for the success of the United Grain Growers, Limited. I have grown grain long enough to know what the conditions were before we had that organization, and even before we had the Manitoba Grain Act. I have sold first class wheat at 35 cents a bushel, and I have no doubt the middlemen got more out of the transaction than I did. Those conditions have been changed, and the people who used to get those big profits do not get them now, and consequently they are stirring up this terrible row. That is the reason why they are so anxious to get as many hon. members as possible to cast some slurs at the United Grain Growers, Limited. And why do they find fault with the buying and retailing of different kinds of goods by that organization? Simply because the United Grain Growers, Limited are doing that work more cheaply than it was ever done before, and have cut down the profits of the older concerns. The United Grain Growers, Limited, handle farm implements, and some time ago a very good supporter of the present Government, who has been in the implement business for some years, assured me that since the United Grain Growers, Limited, started into the business they have sold implements on less than half the commission that was previously charged.
fMr. Thomson.]
1 hat is where all the trouble conies in, that is the reason of the noise we hear and of the mud we see slung at the United Grain Growers, Limited. Those other people have had to cut down their profits, and naturally they are very much aggrieved.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have in the past in this House and in the provincial legislature adhered pretty closely to the two party system, in fact, our whole election machinery and procedure is framed to suit the two party system. That we are getting away from that system is plainly seen in the late elections, not pnly the by-elections for this House but the recent provincial el?c-tions. Whether the group system is right or wrong I shall not discuss at the present time, but we have to face the fact that we are departing from the two party system and getting into the group system Therefore, we should frame our election machinery and our procedure for the conduct of the business of this House with a view to the altered conditions, for it would be folly to attempt to ignore the change that is taking place.
I wish to say a word in this connection with regard to proportional representation. It seems to me that we should arrange at as early a day as possible to have the principle of proportional representation adopted in our cities and other congested areas where its application is practicable and desirable. I agree that in the more scattered settlements the adoption of the principle might be difficult, perhaps unsatisfactory, but there is no reason why in our cities and in our more densely populated agricultural areas the principle of proportional representation should not be put into effect. I think that with the adoption of proportional representation the results of contests in cities would undoubtedly be much fairer. We know that our labouring people are becoming very much alive to the political situation; whether we like it or not, it is the fact. We have extremists among our labourers, although they are a very small proportion of the mass, and it seems to me that for our own safety we should see that every opportunity is given to the labouring classes to be properly represented in this House.
Let me take as an illustration the city of Ottawa. It is quite probable that after the next redistribution the city of Ottawa will have three members. I do not know how the city is divided on party lines, but it is quite possible that Government supporters, supporters of the Liberal party, and supporters of the Labour party may be nearly

equal in numbers. Let us suppose that in Ottawa, entitled to three representatives, there should be 38 per cent of one party,
34 of another, and 28 of another. The most reasonable thing would be that each party should have one representative; that would be the only possible way in which you could have the city fairly represented. But it would be quite possible to cut up the city in such a way that instead of one representative being elected for' each of the parties, the party 38 per cent strong would get the whole three representatives. That would be quite likely to happen; but would it be fair that 38 per cent of the electors of the city should have three representatives while the other 62 per cent should have no representative at all? I do not propose to deal with that any further at present.
Another question which might very well be taken up in this connection is that of the transferable vote in single constituencies where there are three-cornered contests, or live-cornered contests, as was the case in West Peterborough. It seems to me that the idea of adopting some such principle is worthy of our consideration if we are to legislate in the best interests of the country. It is not well that we should have minority representation to any greater extent than is absolutely necessary.
There is another .thing in connection with this change from the two-party system to the group system that has been referred to on different occasions in this House. Under the present system the Government feel that if there is an adverse vote they are, in most cases at any rate, bound to resign. I think it is in the interests of the country that we should make such arrangements for carrying on the business of the House that every member may feel that he is at all times in a position to vote on any question that comes before the House, on its merits. If the majority in the House, voting on a question on its merits, are obliged to vote in opposition to the Government, and at the same time do not wish to defeat the Government, there is no reason why they should not so vote and the Government still remain in office. I merely refer to these things by way of making suggestions; I shall not dwell upon them to any great extent.
With reference to the amendment, I agree with the hon. member from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), my leader in this group, when he says that the present ministry are not usurpers in the position they take and that their course is constitutional. I cannot agree, however, with my hon. friend from
Macdonald (Mr. Henders), when he intimates that it is inconsistent on the part of the leader of this group to start out with different premises from those adopted by the leader of the Opposition and still arrive at the same conclusion. I do not think my hon. friend was very logical when he made that suggestion; nor do I think he will be logical if he says that I may not start from different premises than those adopted by the leader of the Opposition and still arrive at the same conclusion.
If my hon. friend reviews his own conduct he will find that he has sometimes started from different premises from those upon which some others with whom he was associated were working, and yet arrived at the same conclusion. If my recollection serves me rightly, when we were discussing the amendment to last year's Budget resolutions, my hon. friend, who has very different fiscal ideas, I think, from those held by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), and the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt), started from very different premises in considering those questions, yet landed in the same place. When you, Mr. Speaker, uttered those magic words: "Call in the members," and my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) went out to rustle his flock, my hon. friend from Macdonald was rustled in along with the hon. member for North Simcoe and the hon. member for Brantford. They came in together and they all slipped down into thf same berth. The "bairnies all cuddled doon thagither;" there was no kicking at all, no trouble. They started from very different premises; they had very different views as to what the tariff should really be, but they landed in the same , place. 1 do not see, therefore, why my hon. friend should not accord to the hon. member from Marquette and to myself the privilege that he extends to himself. What is fair for one is fair for another.
While I do not look upon the present Administration as usurpers, and while I agree that they may have the confidence of this House-or, at least, it is quite possible that a majority of this House may feel that they are bound to express confidence in them-and I would not question their sincerity in doing so-it seems to me that when any one in this House says that he believes the present Administration enjoys the confidence of the country, he must intend it as a joke. It would be a reflection on the intelligence of any member of this House to say that he be-

lieved anything- of the kind, and I do not like to reflect on the intelligence of hon. members. Anyway, the thing is too absurd; it is utterly impossible.
We have heard a good deal about the by-elections. Apparently some supporters of the Government are able to get some rays of comfort out of those by-elections. Well, I have heard of the time when there was a company formed to extract sunbeams from cucumbers, and it seems to me that that would be a more reasonable task and one more likely of accomplishment than for any supporter of the Government to endeavour to get any comfort from any of the by-elections, even the best of them.
Before I deal further with the question of the by-elections, I wish to remark that some of the hon. gentlemen following the lead of the Prime Minister seem to think the Opposition is just as much on trial as the Government is. I never heard of such a doctrine. If we in this group support the amendment, it does not mean that we are voting confidence in the regular Opposition-not for one moment; we are not doing so. The only question before us is whether we have confidence in this Government or not. That is undoubtedly what this amendment means. By voting for or against this amendment we are voting either want of confidence or confidence in the Government; we have no other course open to us. The supporters of the ^lovernment seem very anxious to becloud the issue by reference to what has happened to the opposition in the by-elections. That is not the issue; but if it were, I think they will get very little comfort from that, because the odds are tremendously in favour of the Opposition in comparison with the Government. Since the war there have been sixteen by-elections. Four of these seats were formerly held by the Opposition and they still hold them.


Arthur Meighen: What constitutionally must happen if the amendment carries?


Levi Thomson: I have nothing
to do with what happens. My duty is to vote on the question before the House in the way in which I believe I should vote.
Mr. MEIGHEN; Without regard to the consequences?


Levi Thomson: My right hon. friend is endeavouring to lead me away from what I was at. I have sometimes preached in this House the doctrine which 
I have preached amongst the people at home and which has been favourably received there, namely, that when any question comes before this House, we must use our best judgment and vote on that question in the way we believe to be right, and let the consequences take care of themselves. When I voted with my right hon. friend on the question of conscription, I had not the slightest idea what the consequences might be. I believed my right hon. friend was right, and I voted with him regardless of the consequences.


Arthur Meighen: If my hon. friend does not object to my interrupting, I should like to follow this out a little further. Does he not think that he and I were agreed as to the consequences then? Does he not think the consequences of a vote enter into the question whether it is right or wrong?


Levi Thomson: To a certain
extent they do, but not in all cases.


Arthur Meighen: I think they do in all cases.


Levi Thomson: The consequences of this may be that the Prime Minister may resign.


Arthur Meighen: What happens then?


Levi Thomson: The consequence then may be that we may have a general election which, I think, will be a God-send to the country.


Arthur Meighen: There must be a Government.	-


Levi Thomson: True.


Arthur Meighen: Therefore, does not a vote for the amendment mean voting that the Opposition should be in instead of this Government?


Levi Thomson: No.


Arthur Meighen: There must be a Government whether there is an election or not.


Levi Thomson: My right hon.
friend could, I presume, advise the Governor General to dissolve Parliament.


Arthur Meighen: But there must be a Government.	[DOT]


Levi Thomson: My right hon.
friend would look after that. I do not think he is so very touchy, so thin-skinned, that he would not be willing to continue in office for a little while in order to get things straightened up and until the people

could pronounce on the question whether he was to continue or not. Governments, even after they are defeated in the country, always continue to hold office for a short time.


Arthur Meighen: It is not a case of being thin-skinned or thick-skinned; it is a case of proper practice. Will the hon. gentleman undertake to support me in a course of that sort?


Levi Thomson: I am not supporting my right hon. friend anyway, and I do not purpose allowing him to coax me into supporting him unless he changes his views very much on the financial question, the question of the tariff. Many things might happen. It would be the duty of my right hon. friend, not mine, to decide what the consequences would be. He might, if he saw fit, ask for a dissolution of Parliament and carry on the Government, as he should, until after an election took place. He might, if he saw fit, resign. In that event, the Governor General would, I understand, call on some one else whom the right hon. gentleman would suggest. I think the usual practice is for the Governor General to ask the Prime Minister for a suggestion. My right hon. friend understands these things all right.


Arthur Meighen: I think I do, but I
was trying to lead the hon. gentleman to understand them too, and not to vote heedless of the consequences, and not to say that he is not voting confidence in someone else when he votes want of confidence in this Government.


Levi Thomson: I am not voting confidence in anyone else when I vote want of confidence in this Government. The course which I have mentioned is open to my right hon: friend, and he knows it is open to him. He might resign and undoubtedly he would be asked to name his successor. He might name anybody he likes, but that is not of my business. The question then would be whether the man he names would undertake to form a Government, and indeed the matter might again come back to my right hon. friend. So many things might happen that I purpose doing my duty and letting the consequences take care of themselves. My right hon. friend drew me off the track, and I will try to get back to it although I do not think he wants me to deal with the subject.
In the four by-elections in constituencies formerly held by the Opposition, the seats
are still held by the Opposition, and 1 think I am right in saying that the Government had so little confidence in themselves and in their popularity
11 p.m. that they did not dare to put up a candidate in any one of those four constituencies. Twelve other seats were vacated which were formerly held by the Government, having been carried in 1917 by most tremendous majorities. Indeed, if providence had handpicked them for my right hon. friend, he could not have done better. In four of those twelve constituencies newly-appointed ministers were candidates, and any of us who know anything about election matters know that such by-elections are not real tests of public feeling. There is always a disposition to support a newly-appointed Cabinet minister, and that is a very hard thing to overcome. It is very seldom that a newly-appointed Cabinet minister going back to the country for re-election has been defeated. Another thing that hardly ever happens is that the majority by which such a man was elected in the previous election is reduced, and, indeed, I cannot think of many cases where that has happened. I am sure there is no case on record in any civilized country where the majority has been so tremendously reduced as it has in this case.
As regards these four seats, in the 1917 election, one went to the Government by acclamation and the other three were carried by the Government by a gross majority of between 20,000 and 21,000. This is worth considering for a little while, and I invite my right hon. friend to pay attention to it if he wants to know something about consequences, because it is of a very great consequence. In the byelections, one of those four seats went by acclamation to the Government. I have not been able ,to get the official figures, but so far as I can gather, the total majority received in the other three by-elections was somewhere around 7,000 or 8,000, so that the majority in those constituencies, where they were electing newly appointed Cabinet ministers, was reduced by about 12,000 or 13,000. Such a thing has never been heard of before in any civilized country in the world. There never has been so clear an indication to any ministry that ever existed that it was not wanted any longer.
But that is not all. Outside of those, there were eight other by-elections in constituencies formerly held by the Government, formerly carried by tremendous majorities or by acclamation. Of these

eight, three were carried in 1917 by the Government by acclamation, in two others the opposition candidate lost his deposit, and in another he came about as near as he could to losing it without actually doing so. He was saved by only a few votes. In another election the constituency was carried by a majority of 2,157. In only one of these constituencies was there anything in the nature of a normal majority, and in that case the Government candidate had a majority of 308. To sum up, in the by-elections the Government won just one solitary seat out of eight, and in that constituency the Government candidate won by acclamation in 1917 and in the by-election the Government candidate only had a moderate majority. What about the others? In one of them the official Opposition candidate won. What about the other six? Why, the other six candidates are sitting right around me here.
Who has the confidence of the country now? How anyone can deceive himself to the extent of making himself imagine that the present Administration has the confidence of the country is something I cannot comprehend. It must be remembered that in three of these by-elections the Government had the advantage of entering a three or five-cornered fight. That meant that the opposition was divided. In West Peterborough, for instance, there was not a candidate in the field, so far as I know, except the Government candidate, who did not pronounce himself on this question of the Government's mandate. All, except the Government candidate, declared that the Government had exhausted its mandate and should go to the country. In that constituency the Government got about one-fourth or one-fifth of the vote, and 75 or 80 per cent of the people pronounced on -the very question we are dealing with here, and declared that the Government should go to the country. I apply the same language to this election that I used in the case of constituencies that ministers were contesting, and say that in this whole civilized world there has never been a case where the people showed so clearly and conclusively that they had no confidence in the Government. I challenge any member on the Government side to quote a single case.


Matthew Robert Blake: What about Ireland?


Levi Thomson: My hon. friend
can go to Ireland if he wants to. I am

not going there just now. I prefer Canada.


Matthew Robert Blake: They have declared want
of confidence in the Government there?


Levi Thomson: I believe that what I
have said would fully justify anyone in voting for this amendment, but I am not voting on these grounds alone. So far as I am concerned, the pronouncement on the tariff in the speech from the Throne is such that I, with my views, whether they be right or wrong, could not consistently vote for the Government on the question before uS. In fairness to myself, and to what I believe to be the views of the majority of my constituents, I could not possibly vote with the Government on this occasion as, to my mind, it would be a vote in support of the fiscal policy of the present Government. Whether I like it or not, I feel that I am compelled to vote for the amendment. I am not satisfied with it in some particulars, but I had nothing to do with its drafting; none of our group had a word to say with regard to it. We have to take the question as it stands, and in view of what I have said I cannot do otherwise than support the amendment.
On the motion of Mr. G. C. Wilson the debate was adjourned.
On the motion of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 11.12 p.m.
Monday, February 28. 1921.